Agora (2009) User Reviews

More historical reconstruction than drama as such

[pagzog · 7/10 · 11 January 2011]

The parts that were historical reconstruction were good, where they invented characters and drama it was weaker. It's good that this story has been told in a surprisingly historically-accurate way.

On questions of historical accuracy, and correcting inaccuracies that other reviewers have said about the film:

• "Anti-Christian bias". In fact Amenábar has gone out of his way to be negative to the other religions, to create balance. For example, pagan persecution of Christians, as shown in the early scenes, had ceased a hundred years before Hypatia's time. Even then, being Christian never appears to have been actually illegal in the pagan empire, although Christians were universally despised. The stories of Christian martyrs are too frequently overblown propaganda stories invented during Hypatia's time when the empire was starting serious persecution of pagans. The martyrdom of St. Katherine of Alexandria is often considered a Christian re-working of the Hypatia story with the religious affiliations reversed.

-Some people have falsely said there were no positive Christian characters in the film. There are very many. Of the main characters, there are more positive Christians than negative. Certain people seem to think that any negative statement about any Christian must be historically false and biased. Some reviewers actually said that Orestes in this film was a pagan: he was a Christian, just one who did not persecute others: does that disqualify him from Jesus's grace? The historical Orestes was a tolerant Christian, just as in the film.

-Yes, the story is remarkably true to the historical record: read Socrates Scholasticus (a liberal Orestes-type Christian). Yes, Cyril and the Parabolani did exist, just as described: yes, the fanatics were opposed to philosophy and "pagan" science. If anything, they were considerably more extreme than shown in this film. Sozomen, a cheerful "Cyril"-type Christian historian, talks about the killing of philosophers with great relish. Read Augustine on astronomy and science, and on toleration of dissent. Or Lactantius or Tertullian: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?", "This is our primary faith: there is nothing we ought to believe besides." Not all Christian leaders and writers were wise and humane. For conservative Christian cosmology, look up Cosmas Indicopleustes (admittedly a hundred years later). The views of Ammonius in the film follow Cosmas. For general background, try Synesius, Ammianus Marcellinus, or Zosimus.

-The Library of Alexandria. Wise people judge others on their actions themselves, and not on the affiliations they profess. The library was mentioned up to Hypatia's time, and not mentioned after. Some people try to blame it on Julius Caesar (although Antony later rebuilt it), and then desperately on anyone other than on someone who carries a label they identify with. After the Arabs conquered Egypt, a story was then circulated in Medieval Europe that the Muslims had destroyed it. That one still gets airplay. As far as anyone can tell, Christian mobs destroyed it along with the rest of pagan institutes. Theodosius gave orders in 391-2 to destroy not just the Serapeum, but all pagan temples and worship.

-The scene of the Christians distributing bread was good, convincing and historically accurate. Some reviewers have used it to imply that pagans would not do this. It was true at the time. But remember that during the pagan empire there was dole of bread in cities: normally nobody was short of bread. Constantine nullified the urban bread ration with a stiff poll tax.

There are many places where the film is bravely historically accurate: even at the cost of risking mass appeal. -Hypatia's chastity. It was brave to have purely intellectual romance without any sex or even kissing. -The religious aspect of her astronomy. -The lack of any modern political correctness for the main characters.

Also good was the direct historical reconstruction of key scenes: Cyril's biblical challenge to Orestes over advice from a pagan and a woman, the subsequent physical attack on Orestes, the persecution of the Jews, etc.

As for things which actually were historical inaccuracies:

• Kepler. This was a kind of sweet artistic liberty. I took this as a sort of inside joke. Hypatia was an astronomer, among other things, and her most original work was on the mathematics of conic sections. So to have her tentatively propose the possibility that the the earth might move in a different conic section - an ellipse rather than a circle - is entertaining but not entirely implausible.

• It would have been much better to have explained in more detail Hypatia's views on spirituality and the flesh, so that her "cure" for her admirer's physical passion was a bit more clear. Perhaps this is in the scenes that had to be cut. In reality, this is explained in detail in Synesius's letters.

• Synesius of Cyrene. He was in fact a much more sympathetic character than made out in the film: both more humane and braver and more admiring of Hypatia. He is the only character whose writings we still have: personal letters that are well worth reading even today. Perhaps Amenábar needed a more critical character to balance Orestes's total admiration. But that kind of utter devotion was common between teacher and pupil in philosophical schools, even across religious boundaries. Again it is interesting that certain reviewers seem to think that admiration for a pagan equals paganism: even today. Just like Cyril. The message of the whole film was that this is not true. It was too subtle for some, obviously.

• The initial attacks of pagans on Christians are anachronistic. Also pagans could not own Christian slaves at this time. But I suppose they had to explain the fanatics hatred for the pagans somehow, other than an inflated memory of events that had occurred a century before.

A very courageous view of the battle between rational science and "free thinkers" versus religious doctrine

[endofthelinefilm · 8/10 · 25 October 2010]

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

a good movie but overambitious

[georgioskarpouzas · 7/10 · 31 January 2010]

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.

The Savagery of Religion

[Blueghost · 6 August 2010]

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! :-)

Rachel Weisz Gives a Brilliant Performance. Everything Else... meh

[ArchStanton1862 · 7/10 · 20 February 2010]

The chief reason to see this film is for Rachel Weisz's performance as Hypatia the philosopher. She is the main character and she gives an excellent performance. Whenever she is on screen you are riveted to the screen. Her excitement at discovery, her endless desire to learn, her ability to figure out the mysteries of the universe are fascinating and she makes them feel exciting even though we know it all already. Unfortunately, when ever she is off-screen there is nothing to hold our interest until she returns. The rest of the plot is a really blunt, unsubtle message about the dangers of religious zealotry blatantly inserted onto Hypatia's story to give it some sort of relevance. The sheer lack of subtlety and intelligence behind this message is annoying. The Christians are all bigoted, mindless, intolerant fools, and the pagans are not much better. Hypatia by contrast is presented as an atheist, which she certainly wasn't, and the only reasonable person left. I have never liked having ideas forced down my throat and this movie does that extremely roughly.

Hypatia has often been seen as a martyr to science which is really a shame since the history doesn't support that. In this movie she is basically presented as an atheist who doesn't believe in any of the gods which is just flat-out wrong. She was a Neoplatonist and what the Neoplatonists were known for was their incorporation of religion in their philosophy. The supposed atheism of philosophers is a myth that should really be discredited by now, and the Neoplatonists actually had miracles and spiritual elements in their teachings. That isn't to say that they had no scientific interests, but they incorporated them into a wider religious context. To have Hypatia speak out against religion in general was just wrong.

The Christian zealotry in this movie is extreme to the point of being utterly unbelievable and insulting. They burn all of the books in the Library of Alexandria because they are pagan filth. The actual event that took place at this time was the burning down of a pagan temple and it's library of religious texts. The Christians never touched the library. For that matter they never intentionally destroyed scientific or philosophical works, its just that the Dark Ages wasn't really the sort of time when they had much use for those tracts which led to many of them being lost. Turning her death into a primitive reaction to education is also bull. She was killed by a Christian mob it is true, but it was over a political conflict, not a religious one. The Christian elite was as highly educated as the pagan elite before them and this wasn't seen as contradictory.

Still, what's good about this movie is Hypatia. She is presented with intelligence and grace and comes across as an extremely likable person. Unfortunately the film is intent on removing her personality and making her merely a symbol. It is to the film's greater credit that in this, it fails.

This is how to make a movie about ancient times

[symmachos · 9/10 · 27 December 2021]

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.

Rachel Weisz is Oscar Worthy but the film is not worthy of her effort.

[scaringthecrows · 7/10 · 26 May 2009]

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.

Extraordinary movie-making at its best.

[vnsfth · 10/10 · 27 May 2009]

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.

Epic and historical drama about a famous female philosophy and astronomy professor called Hypatia of Alexandria

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 20 May 2013]

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.

The Sublime Insignificant

[tytoalba-766-483232 · 10/10 · 16 June 2010]

It surprises me how many reviewers are giving this astonishing film only mediocre ratings, and I do hope this is not because the film chooses not to dwell on the viciousness of Hypatia's murder: a decision which would have made a cinematic 'spectacle' entirely inappropriate for this most subtle and beautiful of films. For the record, the real Hypatia - a pagan philosopher in fourth century Alexandria who deduced that the earth orbited the sun in an ellipse, and preserved her right to operate as a lecturer by repelling her suitors with a gift of a handkerchief stained with her own menstrual blood – was killed as a witch by fundamentalist Christians who scraped the living flesh from her bones with seashells. It is her life and thought, however, and not the manner of her death, which is the chief subject of this film, and that is as it should be.

The astonishingly realistic recreation of Alexandria is in itself a remarkable cinematic feat, the costumes look entirely authentic, the performances are flawless, and the cinematography - always beautiful - is often thoroughly awe inspiring. Ultimately, however, what makes this film so great is the way in which it puts human beings into perspective (swarming fundamentalists ransacking the agora are likened to ants, and in one of the most inspired shots in cinematic history, Alexandria is viewed from outer space, and is sublime and utterly insignificant all at once) whilst suggesting that human beings are nevertheless capable of reaching the heights of reason, and plumbing the depths of unreason. It is one of the ironies of history that the monstrous 'Saint' Cyril of Alexandria is recognised as a Doctor of the Church, whilst not a single word written by Hypatia has survived.

Much ink will be wasted in coming months in discussion of whether this film deliberately paints Christianity in a bad light. The truth is that no form of religious extremism looks good in this film, and for that reason alone, it ought to be statutory viewing for all people who are convinced that theirs is the only god. Rachel Weisz plays the lead role with such grace and conviction that her refusal of Christian baptism, accompanied by the words "I believe in philosophy" – clunky as they may look on the printed page – becomes one of the most powerful moments in modern cinema.

Forget the lukewarm reviews, and see this film for yourself. Thrown off the scent, perhaps, by publicity over-emphasising the romantic element in the film, reviewers have begun to argue that the plot begins to flag in the second half. This is to miss the point entirely: the film is not a romance; it is an exploration of one woman's discoveries about our place in the universe, and it is at once humbling, tragic and victorious. I found myself on the edge of tears throughout most of it, entranced by the splendour, wisdom and realism of its vision. The ending was the hardest and the truest thing I have ever seen in a film.

But don't trust me. Make up your own mind. That is what Hypatia would have told you to do.

Classics buffs will go crazy

[nkanalley · 7/10 · 17 June 2010]

Probably most people in classics know something about Hypatia of Alexandria. I myself discovered her while looking over a book my parents had, which was an illustrated history of the triumph of Christianity in ancient Rome, accompanied by a graphic depiction of the destruction of the Serapeum and the attack on the beautiful female philosopher (likely 60 at the time, but no matter). Alejandro Amenabar, however, has devoted an entire film to this story, and one can see that the subject fascinates him. How did we become who we are today? What was it that transformed the Roman Empire (the Western World, in other words) into the world of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? Sure, the events happened more than 1500 years ago, but the link is clear as glass.

In a world which set design has rendered so believably that it might as well be taken directly from a wall painting from Pompeii, and populated by characters so well cast (at least physically) that they might, as one reviewer has already said, come from Greco-Roman mummy portraits from Roman Egypt, particularly Davus, the slave boy (Max Minghella) and Ammonius, the fanatic (Ashraf Barhom), the civilization of the Hellenistic world is coming under attack by the forces of an intolerant form of Christianity, which seeks to "purify" the city of Alexandria. Hypatia, however, dispenses with religious distinctions in her classroom, teaching pagans, Christians, and Jews alike the secrets of the universe. Her earnest pursuit of scientific truth trumps all other preoccupations, until, at the end of the film, she finds, to her horror and incomprehension, that her very existence on this earth has become impossible.

I have to say that I found the film very engrossing, but then, I love the period and am fascinated by the religious upheavals of late antiquity. I can say that all of the actors perform wonderfully, though I do wish the role of Davus had been fleshed out. Minghella is heartbreaking, and his role perfectly illustrates what it was that likely made many turn to Christianity. If only we could have seen more of him. At times, the film seems like his story, not Hypatia's, and he vanishes for most of the second half. I myself buy why Hypatia has so many suitors (Weisz makes her extremely intelligent without sacrificing physical beauty, and imbues her with a wide eyed, childlike quality that exudes vulnerability and innocence), but I think I needed to see her struggle with her demons more. Why does she reject Orestes? A single shot hints at a conflict here, but it is left at that. The film had an additional twenty minutes that were cut for the sake of marketability. . .perahps the director's cut will illuminate this more? To sum up, the film is flawed, too much character development is sacrificed for the sake of pacing, but in the end, it is an affecting film about a time period that needs to be better known.

Beautiful film

[moonbootica · 10/10 · 17 October 2010]

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

No general direction.

[kosay_1991 · 6/10 · 9 January 2010]

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.

The acting is fantastic but the script does not have any respect for the material.

[lovestuck54 · 5/10 · 3 July 2010]

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)

metaphors, distances

[RResende · 19 April 2010]

The great thing about this film is the choosing of the story, and its context. The shifting of mentalities depicted here and the riotous events, whether historically accurate or not serve as an example of what was going on. Basically the end of an age, that meant the placement of religion at the core of political, social, and cultural powering of society. So, it's pretty apt that they developed a story around the idea of christians overcoming jews and pagans, yes, but more important, forcing Orestes (the "old school" guy) to play their political game, and wiping out Hypatia, the "last" free thinker (and a woman!).

Those viewers that care about historical "truth", whatever that is, should mind a few things here: there aren't enough true facts for us to be able to tell a factual story of the events, and in this film specifically, we shouldn't take things at their facial value, but to consider them as metaphors for something. Characters stand for what they represent in their context. It's all a metaphor, including the physical act of destruction of the library. Library, the term, referred to the books back than, to knowledge, no the physical place, and this certainly is understood by the writers here, who nevertheless use the idea of the building being destroyed, but as a metaphor. That building, which is fairly interesting [1] (even if virtual) becomes the central piece of the metaphor, and the richest thing about the construction of this film, for how they play with the idea of distances. It's as simple as this: first, you have the "Greek school" controlling the library, and everybody else outside. Than christians take over, throw the greeks out, and make the "library" into something close to a church. The remaining Greek thinkers are thrown to the outskirts. And the Agora, center of social discussion, becomes center of riots. Who gets the library gets control, but those events leading to control take place in the Agora. And Hypatia comes to go on with her research outside the city, marginal to the new order.

There is a certain visual interest in the recreation of events, but it seems to me that there was more to the intentions of Amenabar in what concerns the use of the camera than what technology allowed him to do. The movements seem to be more mechanical than he'd probably want, because he wasn't able to predict the spacial world as much as he wanted.

Than we have Hypatia, and the interesting thing about her is how in her we see something common back than, which was the use of science, logic, and mathematics as a path to God, to the understanding of the universe. Actually this attitude went on through the middle ages in western cultures, disguised with various names (gnosticism, alchemy, esoterism). Physical or metaphorically, this shift towards religious politics certainly has been one of the greatest set backs in western culture.

[1] - The building has a circular hole in the ceiling, and the effect is, i think, a watered version of one of our best buildings, Rome's Pantheon.

My opinion: 3/5 http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

It's one of the best historical movies

[bayan-05245 · 7/10 · 26 March 2022]

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.

A necessary movie.

[qed · 10/10 · 17 December 2010]

I am so glad this movie was made and released is Spain, where the Catholic church still retains its grip on society. Other reviews have complained about this movie's lack of plot -- they miss the whole point. What this movie shows is what people were like in that time -- how ignorance and dogma ruled people's lives and how it caused misery and conflict. But in that fog of dull wits are always people, like Hypatia, who want to see further and understand more.

As to the historical nature of what Hypatia herself did, I think the film goes too far. It seems highly unlikely to me that she bridged the gap between Ptolemy and Kepler essentially by herself just thinking about the problem. Prof. George Saliba and others have written extensively on the subject, and the thousand years of analysis primarily by the Arabs was actually necessary for Kepler to finally solve it. But the idea provides very well to the story to show the contrast of one people who spent their lives thinking and those the spent their lives praying, judging and persecuting.

The movie does very well in putting religion in its proper place, and exalting science with the kind of devotion of one who is obsessed with it. It provides a comparison of the ultimate sacrifice of oneself to spreading understanding as supposedly Jesus sacrificed himself for the purposes of spreading ignorance and piety (this is not in the movie, but the parallel was so obvious). Hypatia actually achieves something that we all benefit from to this day, while Jesus achieved nothing.

This film is exceedingly important in this era when the next generation is not as impressed by dogma, but still falls victim to it.

Hypatia Was No Atheist and Christians Were Not Taliban

[scorpio_ny11 · 7/10 · 9 January 2011]

First, I have to applaud the producers of this movie for daring to go into unfamiliar territory. It is exceedingly rare to see historical movies from the ancient era, especially the 4th and 5th centuries. The movie's production values were superb and the tone of the movie was serious. The story does seem a little choppy at times (it actually is two stories in one) but the movie never fails to engross us.

Unfortunately, the message of the movie was far from subtle and I must proclaim gratuitously anti-religious. Already I can see atheists puffing out their chests and declaring religion as poison. They should also look at themselves in the mirror because such talk is dangerous, and can lead to more of the intolerance this movie is ostensibly decrying.

Intolerance is cyclical: those on top eventually find themselves the victim and vice versa. The Pagans start the bloodshed in this movie and for over 200 years mercilessly killed Christians with impunity, often as a form of entertainment. Now the Christians have the power and it is payback. Yet intolerance and violence is not religion - one need have no beliefs at all to be a murderer - and the real purpose of religion is to transcend one's ego, not increase it.

Now, let's set the record straight. Hypatia was NO atheist but a Neoplatonist. She was not a materialist or iconoclast like atheists today. She had deep-felt beliefs but they were decidedly more philosophical and metaphysical. Nor was she a hedonist and actually remained a virgin, as this movie implies. I am certain that Hypatia, were she alive today, would be disgusted by atheism which believes in absolutely nothing.

Second, I am highly skeptical that Christians were dressed like Taliban and that they were salivating, blood-thirsty barbarians. To be fair, the movie depicts pagans, Jews, and Christians as all intolerant and murderous but in the end the Christians with their black clothes and philistine attacks on culture and learning was a bit too much and felt unbalanced.

Now, intolerance to other faiths was certainly a reality. Neoplatonism itself would be outlawed within a century of this time period when Emperor Justinian closed all the pagan schools and the pagans had ruthlessly murdered thousands of Christians with impunity for a good two centuries. I'm not sure about the Jews but I'm sure they were not innocent either (nor were they in this movie).

Little is known about Hypatia's teachings. She is a very minor character in the history of philosophy, even Neoplatonism, but she will always be remembered for two reasons: she was a woman and she was martyred.

I was forgiven and now I can't forgive.

[lastliberal · 8/10 · 26 November 2010]

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.

Agora

[fevziye_92 · 7/10 · 27 May 2012]

I love ancient history and I love philosophy. So i m suggested to watch this movie by my brother. Agora is the fascinating true story of Hypatia. She lives in the 4th Century AD in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. Hypatia (Rachel Weisz) teaches her students in philosophy, mathematics and astronomy. She is famous in her era. Also Hypatia is a symbol for courage.I hope the film is liked and understood, and that we learn a little bit from its depiction of history. It's established early on that she rejects the love interests of both Davus, her soon to be freed slave and convert to Christianity and Orestes, the pagan nobleman who later becomes the prefect of Alexandria. In a scene based on a true story, she hands Orestes, a handkerchief soaked with blood from her menstrual cycle and makes it clear that she has no interest in future sexual relationships. The focus thus is on Hypatia's internal arc, as she struggles to replace Ptolemy's erroneous geocentric conception of the universe with a heliocentric model. We know basically that she'll come up with the right answer in regards to her astronomical quandaries. Many of the scenes is quite emotional. In the end, I highly recommend it

Best film of 2009

[luna_highwind · 10/10 · 15 June 2010]

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.

Partial credit for Hypatia's astronomy

[dragonslayer_ · 6/10 · 13 February 2012]

As listed in the errors section, Hypatia couldn't have known from the observational equipment available to her that the earth's orbit was an ellipse rather than a circle, (which is a special case ellipse). It was the work of Kepler using the very precise measurements of Tycho Brahe that proved that the earth's orbit is in fact an ellipse, however the deviation from a perfect circle is very minute.

The seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth's axis 23.5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, the plane that contains the earth's orbit. In the northern hemisphere, in the summer, the northern hemisphere is tilted at a better angle, thus the warmer weather. The opposite for wintertime. The earth is actually closer to the sun in the winter than summer due to the earth's orbit being a (nearly circle) ellipse.

A film stretched too far in its complexity.

[aragorn_lordofthering · 8/10 · 12 September 2009]

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

An interesting point in history

[robotbling · 7/10 · 12 December 2011]

(www.plasticpals.com) Modern moviegoers have the attention spans of small children, so it doesn't surprise me that Agora was overlooked when it was quietly released into a handful of theaters in 2009. Its subject matter is less than appealing for the Christian leaning United States, a majority of whom will not want to be reminded of this particular slice of history. The story takes place at the end of the Roman empire in Alexandria, 391 A.D., when Christianity was beginning to flex its new found political power to squash anything in their way, which would eventually plunge the Western world into the dark ages. Rachel Weisz stars as Hypatia, the first notable female mathematician, and a teacher at the city's most prestigious library. Though she lives in a male-dominated society, she dismisses her suitors in her search for the truth about the cosmos.

Agora is not specifically an anti-Christian film, as some have labeled it, but it reminds us that Christians do at times kill for their beliefs (which, incidentally, still occurs - note: this review was written prior to the recent massacre in Norway). In fact, none of the groups in the film are shown in a very flattering light, as stupid decisions lead to an endless cycle of revenge, with each side believing they are the righteous. Other negative aspects of society at the time are also shown – Hypatia, for her part, has slaves that she treats with disregard. It is a Christian who is shown feeding the hungry in an act of selflessness. It's a fascinating time in history, and it doesn't require the bloody games of the Colosseum to hold one's interest.

One of Hypatia's students would go on to become the governor of Alexandria for Imperial Rome. Though she doesn't return his affections, his love for her puts them both in the middle of a power struggle with the Christian coalition. All of the sets and costumes are done quite well, and the city is shown with the same degree of realism as the Roman-era revival film, Gladiator. Though Hypatia seems a bit frigid, Rachel Weisz does a good job with the role, and the other actors fill out their parts admirably. I caught it on Netflix (one of the few relatively new movie releases that interested me) and I recommend it. It's not a perfect movie but it does a good job of capturing an interesting period in our history.

A really very dull review of the film

[ynoel-2 · 5/10 · 9 October 2009]

Too tired to write decently. Saw the premiere here in Spain. Good film. Not bad, not great. Totally crap compared to his other more intimate films. No idea why so many see Rachel's role as good. It was contrived, and we never believe she could have been a 'brilliant astronomer'. Music was a COMPLETE disappointment from a genius composer. Photography outstanding. Story gets lost in too many sub-stories. Too vague. Love the ambiance of the 4th century, though far too clean. We see 'hundreds of thousands' of people, yet...not a single child at all. We all know kids in film double its budget (the poor little protégés have to be sooo carefully looked after, they are soooo delicate), but still. it's a glaring falsity. Been to Cairo, seen the trillions of kids everywhere? Well, it was worse then. Mmmmm what else? How yeah, a personal note to Alejandro: OK dude, you got your big lump of cash, now come back. Indie film needs you, and we DON'T need another Hollywood megalomaniac effort. I'll buy you a beer.