User reviews

I highly recommend the film AGORA by Alejandro Amenábar (who also directed the Others) now out on DVD.

It's not a perfect film (the acting and dialogue is a bit clunky at times) but it is a very courageous view of the battle between rational science and "free thinkers" versus religious doctrine. And even if it takes place 1600 years ago, the frightening conflicts are still here today and the questions the film raises are, unfortunately, still very relevant.

The sets, photography, costumes etc are great, the use of shots of the earth from space give the film a slight "Kubrick" feel (not because of a parallel with 2001) but because down below, humans in their folly, are murdering each other over "my God is better than your God" fairy tales, meanwhile the universe, that we are slowly starting to understand through SCIENCE, remains there with many secrets waiting to be discovered.

The film is unbelievably sad in it's depiction of mobs of religious extremists destroying accumulated knowledge, a fact that has happen many times throughout history, delaying our progress in so many ways.

This is a truly a horror film for those whose value science, rationality, free thinking and feminism.

Unfortunately, this film got only a very limited theatrical release in North America.

I give it plenty of kudos and 8.5/10

I was familiar with the Hypatia story because a certain category of people in my native country choose to present here as a martyr from a bygone golden age of reason, rapidly receding before the encompassing waves of Cristian barbarity and obscurantism. I think in general this is also the view this movie takes.

The character of Hypatia is presented as logical, brilliant, prudent with thirst for learning for it's own sake. The only problem that a modern sensibility could find with her is her attitude towards slaves, which seem to reflect the ideas of the educated elite of the times(of antiquity in general because even people of the calibre of Aristotle shared such conceptions). Otherwise she is perfect.

In a very imperfect world one must note, because the society she lives in is convulsed by civil strife and feuds between Christians, Pagans and Jews.As the movie progresses they eventually become Christian and Jews because Pagans convert to Christianity because of the attitudes of imperial authority and political expediency. Although this is not fully explained, how a very powerful pagan element becomes impotent in the second half of the movie. I think the scenario is problematic there.

Also the beliefs of the group in which Hypatia belongs are not really clarified. There were pagan, believers of the aegypian Gods(there is a statue of Serapis), of Greek Gods of Roman Gods or just agnostic rationalists(as Hypatia seems to be) belonging to a pagan upper class environment? On the other side, the Christian, the "Parabalanoi" whose existence I have not verified as a social group or lay monastic order or something in between, are presented as a bunch of idiotic thugs, the equivalent of modern hooligans with a religious veneer, keen to kill, pillage and rape(although this is hinted rather discreetly)supposedly in the name of Jesus.

The leader of the Christians Cyril-a historical personage who became a saint, as the final titles of the movie correctly state, is portrayed as a power-hungry(there is scene in which he avidly takes the bishop's ring from the hand of his dead predecessor), manipulative bigot. His aim is to become master of Alexandria and Christianity is his tool, while the Prefect-the political authority- stands in his way.The Prefect, being a former student of Hypatia is advised by her, thus she earns the enmity of Cyril- with fatal results. His portrayal matches with a sketch of him by Bertrand Russell in "History of Western Philosophy":"St Cyril, the advocate of unity, was a man of fanatical zeal. He used his position as patriarch to incite pogroms against the very large Jewish colony in Alexandria. His chief claim to fame is the lynching of Hypatia, a distinguished lady who, in an age of bigotry, adhered to the Neoplatonic philosophy and devoted her talents to mathematics." The way he is in the movie seems inspired by this passage, as if the makers of the movie were based on that. Nevertheless it was effective since they made the viewers find despicable a man dead by 1.600 years.

There is only one scene where the Christian religion is presented with some sympathy and that is where the slave(who is secretly in love with his mistress Hypatia) is convinced to exercise the virtue of charity, by an otherwise negatively portrayed zealot(Ammonius), through giving food(bread)to the poor, who are many and needy. It is a moving scene and the sole in movie akin to present Christianity in a positive light.

Religious struggle is presented as a power struggle, which may be correct when one leaves the realm of individual conscience and enters the public arena. Pagans, Christians and Jews(both people and leaders) are equally bad, the worse being the Christian zealots "Parabolani", to which a freed slave of Hypatia now belongs. Orestes, the Prefect, a former student of Hypatia, is better as a character than Cyril or Synesius, another student of Hypatia, now a high-class Church dignitary.(One though is left with the impression that Hypatia operated the Harvard of her times!) The end of the movie, presents a view of events censored compared to the one we have from historical sources, as to what exactly happened to Hypatia.

I think that the actress playing Hypatia is fine and convincing as a free spirit in an age of bigotry and also good is the performance of her two unconsummated would-be-lovers the aristocrat and latter Prefect Orestes and the slave and latter Christian zealot, Davus. The actor playing Cyril conveys the aura of sliminess and bigotry of a religious power-player.

Scenery and costumes are superb to watch but I do not know enough about Alexandrian geography and clothing habits to vouch for their historical accuracy.

It is a movie worth seen although it leaves a bitter taste in the end and tries to say and mix too many and too weighty matters in the brief span of a cinematic exhibition.

I remember hearing of Hypatia's tragic tale from Carl Sagan in his "Cosmos" TV series way back in 1980. I was appalled by the tale, and shook my head as any good reasoned young man would. It was a story that stuck with me for much of my life. And I often wondered if such an important biography would ever be published about this mysterious and remarkable historic figure. I truly did not think so, and believed that Hypatia's memory would have to live on with what little history there was written about her, and the blurb mentioned once or twice by Carl Sagan as he recounted the once magnificent library of Alexandria.

People are stupid. I agree with Ridley Scott on this. They really and truly are. Whether it's the zealots portrayed in this film, or the Christian who sat behind me commenting on the film (he ACTUALLY APPLAUDED the Christians in the film), or just people in general, they really are stupid. It's how we get things like religion, and place not just some whimsical desire in them, but a devout belief, a serious conviction of some entity that is displeased by earthly decadence. Hence the crux of the story in "Agora".

We have the absolute mind numbed moronic thinking of the masses verse the practicality of those who know they do not know everything, but have a thirst for knowledge, and to share that knowing with others so that they can live a life free of fear.

But, we see that it is fear that wins out. Not reason. Not logic applied to a simple problem with a simple solution. But pure, unmitigated fear. Everyone from the heads of state, the heads of religions, the heads of mobs, the heads of any social entity in Roman Imperial Egypt is gripped by fear. Knowledge. Reason. Logic. Understanding. Education. Those are the true weapons that can assail the most ardent of foes.

But fear is primal, and infects everyone and everything like a plague spread by rats. The notion of imaginary beings who, in spite of being all powerful and all knowing, are vested in a patch of desert and how its human female population dresses should be a warning sign. Does this not sound familiar? We have the same concerns today, and although codified and addressed by legislation for local morays, and investigated and codified by alleged behavioral experts, people are still pretty touchy about anything remotely informative that doesn't gybe with their ideals: as a for instance; sex in this case.

Hypatia thinks like a man, despite her sexual makeup. She is the one who calls reason, as any good leader or scientist would. The rest merely cower to the polity dominating the social terrain. But she is optimistic. Even so, the times tragically overwhelm her.

The story of Hypatia has been somewhat elongated, no doubt for dramatic effect. Regardless, it's a good watch. Buy yourself a ticket, or grab the DVD when it comes out. You won't be disappointed.

Enjoy! :-)

As a well-crafted and historically accurate chronicle of Alexandria in late antiquity, this movie compares favorably with HBO's *Rome,* and it actually trumps *Rome* in its fidelity to fact. Without sentimentality or smarminess, without intrusive soundtrack music, we see the life and death of Hypatia, one of the greatest astronomers & mathematicians of the ancient world. The ever-lovely Rachel Weisz gives a thoughtful performance as the title character, and Max Minghella is very good as Davus, the brooding slave boy whose unrequited devotion remains as steady as the stars.

Although Davus is fictional, the other major characters - Theon (Hypatia's father), Orestes (her aristocratic suitor, played by Oscar Isaac), Synesius (her Christian student, later Bishop of Cyrene), Cyril (Bishop of Alexandria), and Ammonius the monk - were all real people who behaved more or less as they are portrayed. The story is extremely relevant to contemporary events, both in the U. S. and in the Muslim world, yet it never falsifies its source material. The destruction of the Serapeion, the religious policing of the Parabolani, the persecution of the Jews, the public attack on Orestes, and the high status of Hypatia in her native city are all recorded by authors who lived in that era.

Especially striking for me was the fact that Hypatia's disciples included both pagans and Christians, and that she herself considered such religious differences insignificant next to the humanity we all share.

I recommend this movie for anybody who enjoys historical dramas. For more details on the historical background, try *Hypatia of Alexandria* by Maria Dzielska.

Muddled film that has its sights set high in the right course but lacks focus and a direct script that can handle the subject matter. Alejandro Amenábar tries his best but comes up short in many ways with his narrative. The movie is a little too long and the script wavers from time to time but Rachel Weisz's performance is Oscar worthy and deserving of a better film that respects the effort she puts in it. She makes you stay with the movie, even when It sputters out of control during the last half of the film. She gets good support from her leading men (Max Minghella and Oscar Isaac) but its hard for the three of them to connect with how unfocused the script is and that's the film's biggest problem.

For Weisz's Oscar effort and the solid performances of her leading men, the movie gets a 7 but with out their performances, the movie would be much lower.

Alejandro Amenábar's masterpiece is a breathtaking excursion into religious fascism and misogynistic tyranny made special by Rachel Weisz, who probably give one of the best female acting performances in years as a scientist who was light years beyond her generation. Weisz is amazing and her performance is the show and then some. She's back up by Max Minghella, who is a great actor in his own right and Oscar Isaac, who is just as good. The triangle between them in believable and touch by their struggles to find their destinies. Its a moving cinematic piece of art and Alejandro does the story proud in his way of capturing the time of struggles of that time. Far and away, the best film I have seen all year.

Spectacular and lavish film well directed by successful filmmaker Alejandro Amenabar . Historical drama concerning a slave (Max Minghella) who turns to the rising tide of Christianity in the hopes of pursuing freedom while also falling in love with his master, the known female philosophy and mathematics professor Hypatia of Alexandria (Rachel Weisz) .The mathematician and philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was the daughter of the mathematician Theon Alexandricus (Michael Lonsdale). She was educated at Athens. Around AD 400, she became head of the Platonist school at Alexandria where she imparted the knowledge of Plato and Aristotle to any student. The picture is set in Alexandria, 391 AD . There Hypatia teaches astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy. Her pupils included pagans, Christians , slaves (Max Minghella) and foreigners . As the city's Christians, led by Ammonius (Ashraf Barhom) and Cyril (Samir) , gain political and economic power . At the end Orestes (Oscar Isaac), the governor of Alexandria, and Cyril (Sami Samir) , the Bishop of Alexandria, found themselves in a bitter feud in which Hypatia would come to be one of the main points of contention . The feud, which took place in 415 AD, began over the matter of Jewish dancing exhibitions in Alexandria . Since these exhibitions attracted large crowds and were commonly prone to civil disorder of varying degrees . Then was published an edict which outlined new regulations for such Jewish gatherings . Soon after, crowds gathered against Jews and these angry over the new regulations that had been imposed upon them , which many people felt was an attempt to incite the crowd into sedition .

This intense drama is based on some hokey events , on a hand there are real deeds , but on other hand based on false facts ; as Christians are the bad guys when actually by that time Catholics were relentlessly pursued and massacred . A historical, epic film set in Roman Egyp with excellent acting , overwhelming set design , colorful cinematography by Xavi Gimenez , evocative musical score by Dario Marianelli and lavishly produced by Fernando Bovaira . Interesting and thought-provoking screenplay by Alejandro Amenábar and Mateo Gil , they wrote the script with Rachel Weisz in mind to play Hypatia, the lead character. Splendid performances all around and special mention to Rachel Weisz giving one of the best acting of his prestigious career . Originally, Alejandro Amenábar wanted Rachel Weisz, Sacha Baron Cohen and Jonathan Rhys Meyers to appear in the film. After reading the screenplay, Weisz did accept the part of Hypatia, however, Baron Cohen turned it down . Along with a notorious remaining cast such as Max Minghella as Davus , Oscar Isaac as Orestes , Ashraf Barhom as Ammonius , Michael Lonsdale as Theon and Rupert Evans as Synesius . Impressive production design , as the sets were built on the exact same spot , Fort Ricasoli, Malta, where the Coliseum was built for Gladiator . The fort was also used for Julius Caesar, Helena of Troy and Troy . Breathtaking visual effects , as the FX team designed the night skies accurately for the time period of the movie using a star chart software.

The picture is partially based on facts , as the texts written are varied : The contemporary 5th-century sources do identify Hypatia of Alexandria as a practitioner and teacher of the philosophy of Plato and Plotinus, but, two hundred years later, the 7th-century Egyptian Coptic bishop John of Nikiû identified her as a Hellenistic pagan and that "she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through her Satanic wiles". Not all Christians were as hostile towards her as John of Nikiu or the monks who killed her: some Christians even used Hypatia as symbolic of Virtue . Two widely cited, but divergent texts describe the feud between Orestes, the prefect of Alexandria and Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria . The feud and the city-wide anger it provoked ultimately brought about the death of Hypatia .One source, the Historia Ecclesiastica was written by Socrates Scholasticus some time shortly after Hypatia's death in AD 415 . Scholasticus gives a more complete, less biased account of the feud between Orestes and Cyril, and the role Hypatia played in the feud that resulted in her death. The other source, The Chronicle, written by John of Nikiu in Egypt, around 650 AD, demonizes Hypatia and Orestes directly, while validating all Christians involved in the events Nikiu describes.

a really engaging film looking at the clash of Christians & Pagans in 4th Century Roman AD. The loss of ancient knowledge and destruction by ignorant violent mobs Hypatia, a female mathematician, philosopher and astronomer in 4th century AD Roman Egypt - a most interesting historical character. & the important of tolerance and asking questions, the pursuit of knowledge. beautifully shot film as well, a window of a lost society. I love Ancient History & was nice to see it brought to the screen. just tragic the destruction of ancient knowledge by stupid mobs whipped up by crazy zealots just makes you wonder with the collapse of the Roman empire how much ancient knowledge was destroyed

I won't include any spoilers in this review... I entered this movie thinking i'll see some epic war, or some romance story, or maybe scientific breakthroughs... or hell a documentary maybe...? It is true that there was a myriad number of things to expect, but i didn't expect it to be all of these at once. The movies problem is not in lack of content, on the contrary, there is just so much going on, there is no focus or general direction to be seen anywhere. There is no general direction for the story itself; in the middle of the movie you're going to be wondering okay what are we concentrating on here...? Here is the way i see it; twists are nice, but total clue-lessness is not. The director is trying to do too much in one movie. He tries to talk about handful of characters at once with way too much detail about each. I would've rather had a movie that talks about one of these characters with much more focus. The acting, however, was pretty good. Rachel Weisz and a handful of actors provided us with an admirable performance that was nice to watch. The environments and depictions of 4th century Egypt were stunning. Not a waste of money, but nothing memorable either.. I've seen better.

Unfocused look at the beginning of the dark ages has a dedicated cast of actors working with basically nothing in terms of a coherent plot. Rachel Weisz does extraordinary work with what she has but she's doing more than she should have in terms of the script she is working with and it shows because while the movie struggles with its incoherent plot, Weisz gamely gives it the strong characterization it needs. Fortunately for Weisz and the audience, she is surrounded by equally dedicated actors who bring more to their characters and the script as well with Max Minghella, Ashraf Barhom and Oscar Isaac each giving more to the material they are working with. Which is a shame because if the film had a tighter script that focus more on the age and time the film was set in, the film would have been much better off than it is right now. As it is, its more a lesson on how good acting can be blindsided by weak material than a lesson on what the age was about.

5/10 (For the acting only)

Leave it to the church to exalt a slimy bigot like Cyril (Sami Samir) to sainthood. he was not interested in anything but power.

This is the story of the Taliban and the Tea Partiers, and the Christian Right in America set in the time when the Romans controlled Alexandria.

First, the Christians drove those who worshipped Greek and Roman gods out of power, and deemed them unworthy of converting. The they went after the Jews. Having driven out all the other religions, the went after women and children. Does all this sound familiar? These bigots justified their murder and hatred by saying it is what God wants. It was obvious that it was what they wanted, and only used God to justify their hate. We see that today.

Rachel Weisz was fantastic as the voice of reason. A lost cause against those who abandoned knowledge and reason for their personal glory.

A beautiful film with outstanding cinematography, costumes and sets, and an excellent job of direction by Alejandro Amenábar.

Interesting film set in the late Roman period, in the 400s A.D., in Alexandria, Egypt. Rachel Weisz plays Hypatia, a rare female philosopher and astronomer. A religious tsunami in the name of Christianity is starting to sweep through this area of the world, and they don't take kindly to those who question God's creation. The film has been heavily criticized for its apparent anti-Christian sentiments. I'd like to think bigotry was not what Amenabar was aiming at, but that's difficult. Yeah, I'm sure stuff like this happened at the time, and the Dark Ages (not entirely the fault of Christianity, but it certainly didn't help) were just around the corner. And, yes, I'm sure they had to kill a whole bunch of people to end up taking over the world. Still, this particular story is mostly fictional, so that kind of harms Amenabar's hypothesis. Then again, one can posit this fictional account of Hypatia as symbolic more than literal. But it really doesn't help that Amenabar dresses all the Christians in black clothes, and has most of the Christian leaders with dark skin and big fuzzy beards, as swarthy as possible.

I honestly don't care all that much about the political aspects of the film (maybe Amenabar meant to disparage modern day Christians, maybe he didn't). My only concern is that the film isn't especially involving. With such an obscure, interesting piece of history, it should have been a bit less dull than it is. Weisz is pretty good, but none of the other actors (or their characters) register whatsoever. I certainly didn't hate it - it's very pretty and fairly well directed - but I don't like it all that much.

This is arguably the best film of 2009, depending on whether or not you understand the filmmaker's perspective. I believe, in some ways, full appreciation of this film can only be achieved if you have watched a completely unrelated work: "Cosmos", by Carl Sagan.

Both the Library of Alexandria and Hypatia were terms that constantly came up in Cosmos; and although it is unclear if Sagan had any influence in the making of this film, it really embodied Sagan's philosophy. For example, there are a lot of aerial shots, looking at the Earth from afar - often during dramatic scenes of either love or violence that shows both how insignificant and how precious the human existence is. In spite of all our wars and hate and differences, we are all being carried on this lone blue vessel, journeying through the vast emptiness of space. Are we really that different? Or do more things unite us than divide us, like Hypatia says? In a moment of sheer ignorance, men can destroy their own proudest and most beautiful achievements and erase all of their accumulated knowledge. It's happened before, and it could happen again. This film delivered this message with beautiful precision - are we naive, like Orestes of Alexandria, to think we have finally changed? Or should we look at ourselves in the mirror and know that we still have a long road ahead to better ourselves? The choice is up to us.

An ancient philosopher resists the rise of religious mania, but her followers give in to temptation as the forces of evil close in.

One of the great episodes in all history, when power, faith and reason came together in an explosion of cruelty and hatred. As another reviewer put it, the moment the dark ages began. This production doesn't quite do the story justice, but it does mix the elements with style and passion and sketches out the historical record in good faith. I did wonder how brutal the ending would be, and the director chose to ease the passing - was that wise?

The locations and sets are fascinating, giving a feel for the legendary city while preserving the sense of decay and ruin, and the themes are presented with as much visual flair as possible. There are several set pieces that drive home the depravity of urban rioting, but before that kicks off there's a stodgy opening act, which left me restless and unengaged. Some have criticised the script, but I can't see any obvious way to have improved on it. Maybe a big production like this needs a bit of luck to succeed, or ... divine intervention.

The performances are solid, the most vivid coming in the part of Cyril, the vengeful bishop. The photography and music have great sweep, and the editing keeps the pace clipping along - although the first half hour lacks something. There's a fair amount of geometric symbolism, and I'm sure I missed most of its significance, so this should be worth re-watching.

Overall: Impressive drama that just fails to hit the spot.

I saw this today at the Toronto International Film Festival, and overall it was quite an interesting experience for me. I will first comment on the pros, and then the cons.

The Good

From the beginning, the film's exquisite detail is evident -- costumes, sets, props, hundreds/thousands of extras, etc --, reminding me especially of HBO's Rome series. CGIs were amazing, and the sound effects used in certain scenes with large numbers of people were thunderous and powerful -- surely the best I have seen from a film. It is by far the most ambitious project in the bringing to life of an ancient city that I have seen on screen. I only wished that they would have had the actors speak in Greek, but that would be asking too much I suppose :p

Also, I liked how the film did not focus so much on portraying any one religious group as "the bad guy". Naturally, one would have assumed that it was going to be the Christians (after seeing the trailers), but in fact the goods and the bads were exposed in all religions, which added to the realism and historical accuracy of the film.

Above all, this director ought to be commended in his attempt to capture the society in the city of Alexandria of late antiquity. This has never yet been done in cinema, and Amenabar clearly attempts to do this out of extraordinary passion for his work. Agora presents to the audience a glimpse into a world that is little known outside of the circles of ancient historians and classicists, and the film's portrayal of religious strife between the different groups in Alexandria successfully shows a very complex ancient society.

The main character, Davus, also serves as an important figure, by representing the common man living in Alexandria at the time who must face the challenges of an ancient society in transition. However, I feel that the subtleties of Davus' character, who is indeed a source of much important historical information, would be misunderstood and ignored by the audience, which would be in search of something more direct and "in- your-face" from the film.

Overall, the film was at its best when it subtly hinted certain elements/themes to the audience -- this is when it showed the most sophistication in the portrayal of history, and skill in terms of artistic merit.

The Bad

I think the biggest mistake that the director made was to focus too much on the religious conflict. Without a doubt, during the first 45 minutes the audience was engulfed and captivated with awe by the strife between the pagans and the Christians (probably because such a time in history is little known today, and rarely portrayed in art or discussed), but the film does not give a break to its constant references to religion. Throughout the two hours, the script continuously shows the characters' endless preoccupation with religious matters, which takes away from development of their individualities. Amenabar tries to differ attention toward other things, through the love triangle between Orestes, Davus, and Hypatia -- which works well at times, but could have been developed far more (especially between her and Davus). He also gives some attention to science; a big mistake IMO, because in such scenes, one feels like the film turns into a lecture. If Amenabar had tried to use CGIs to demonstrate some of the scientific concepts discussed among characters, he could have added something artistic to the bland dialogue of those scenes.

I was also somewhat disappointed by Dario Marianelli's score. HAving heard his compositions for "Pride and Prejudice", "Atonement" and "V for Vendetta", I was expecting a musical score that was more intense and thought-provoking, rather than a more or less typical and primitive symphony that one often hears in "epic" historical films.

8/10

The story is interesting, I like that focus was on the story more than war scenes Also, war scenes took their right to the film

Note: Sorry if my English looks bad.

I've watched movies like "Trumbo", "American Sniper", "Lone Survivor", etc. all of which claim to be true stories and all of which later disappointed me because they weren't really "true" stories at all. I generally liked these movies at first but the moment I started digging into the facts, I discovered plenty of facts that discredit the storylines. I can still watch those movie and enjoy them but I can't take their claims of truthfulness seriously anymore. Movies like these betray your willingness to invest yourself into the stories. They manipulate people into believing lies and that in my mind makes the movies trash. And it's the same for this movie, "Agora". I initially enjoyed it as a movie. But after learning about the amount of facts that they twisted in the movie to sell their anti-religious (particularly anti-christian) narrative, I think it's just trash. They deliberately altered settled historical facts in a lot of places and they added details that have no historical backing to them, all in their attempt to make it seem like Hypatia was caught up in a science vs. religion tug-of-war. And as a skeptical agnostic, seeing all the overly enthusiastic anti-theist atheists "religiously" celebrating the movie like it represents the truth is just embarrassing, to be honest.