Metascore
53 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 33
  2. Negative: 2 out of 33
  1. Reviewed by: Lisa Schwarzbaum
    May 16, 2012
    91
    Whenever Rupert Everett appears as a rich fellow who distinctly does not fancy ladies, it's a hysterical history lesson of the hilarious variety.
  2. Reviewed by: Rex Reed
    May 17, 2012
    88
    Considering the subject, ripe with titillating possibilities, it's surprisingly about as sexy as a week-old meat loaf. Tastefully directed by Tanya Wexler, it is a total joy from start to finish.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 12 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 4
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 4
  3. Negative: 0 out of 4
  1. A well made and pretty funny movie. This is a movie I thought could be really cheesy but thankfully it hits more than it misses. I recommend you at least check this film out once. Full Review »
  2. This fact-based film explores the birth of the vibrator. In the 1880s, women where often diagnosed with hysteria, which was treated by a doctor who masturbated them into contentment. After one popular young physician (Hugh Dancy) becomes immobilized by his overused hand, he stumbles upon the beneficial invention. It's obvious how every aspect of this story will play out after the first 10 minutes. So it's all about the execution. The direction is genteel with typical British aplomb and the performances are enjoyable. The standout is Maggie Gyllenhaal as the socially-conscious troublemaker. Overall, it's a mildly amusing, but undistinguished history lesson. Full Review »
  3. Only the British could make a film about the invention of the vibrator and indicate women having orgasms without showing couples having sex or anyone being rude, or crude, using the â Full Review »