Most of the reviews are almost unanimous in praise for Rachel Weisz's performance. I think the general agreement is that while she is good, the rest of the film has some problems.

Anyway, i will it for Weisz's great performance.

I'm not an historian but I question some of the historical facts here. This time in ancient history was a continuum of a violent and religiously diverse era where sects rapidly sprung up and opposed one another. But I do not believe that in 39 AD Christianity had any power, political or religious. It had barely found a foothold outside the realm of Judiasm.

The reason the teachings of the ancients are still known to us and documented is because the early Christian Church took pains to preserve it. It was the monks who copied ancient documents and kept them in safe keeping in their monastaries… a practice which led to the establishments of the first Universities as scholar came to study those documents.

I know films fiddle with hard cold facts for dramatic effect but I hate when they create fantasy with just enough truth to pervert knowledge.

Rachel Weisz is a great actress. I hate to see her wasted on stuff like this.

Seen 'Agora' here in Cannes yesterday and I thought it was awesome. The negative reviews seem to judge the movie on a shallow level, just comparing it to Ben Hur or Quo Vadis doesn't do it justice. It's true that the movie is outrageously ambitious but I think Amenábar pulled it off – I'm not even too crazy about his earlier work but I loved this movie, eventhough it has a depressing and bleak ending. It works both as an audience movie and as food for though but it doesn't force it's message upon the viewer, as movies-with-a-message usually do.

Agora is a heartfelt plea for tolerance and to dismiss that as "not the new gladiaitor" feels disrespectful and dumb to me. I hope it'll do well, eventhough I can imagine christians can be upset by the movie, eventhough Amenábar states and emphasizes he really didn't want to offend anyone with this film.

Saw the movie as well and its very good. Rachel Weisz probably gives the best performance of her career and if she's not nominated for an Oscar, than there is no justice in the world.

@Patricia:

I don't know if the film will be true to the historical details, but Hypatia definitely lived in Alexandria during the period, wihch was part of the Roman Empire. And the Empire was Christian.

The movie is set in 391 AD, not 39 AD. Constantine I effectively started the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity by 313 (Edict of Milan) and by 380 AD, Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion (Nicene Creed). So by 391 AD Christianity was the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

@sbjnyc: Thanks, I was hoping someone with more info would post. My misreading of the date explains a lot. Yes, I know the date of the Edict of Milan. But you gotta admit my mistake is supported by the wardrobe which is very early first century and not 4th.

@Patricia:

Actually wardrobes in Alexandria did not change all that much until the Islamic conquests. Regardless. I've been waiting for a movie like this to be made for decades, ever since reading Libanius in Greek class. From what little I know of the film, I believe most of he script is based on Gibbon, Rise and Fall. Here is a quoted passage (chapter 47) :

"Hypatia, the daughter of Theon the mathematician, was initiated in her father's studies; her learned comments have elucidated the geometry of Apollonius and Diophantus; and she publicly taught, both at Athens and Alexandria, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. In the bloom of beauty, and in the maturity of wisdom, the modest maid refused her lovers and instructed her disciples; the persons most illustrious for their rank or merit were impatient to visit the female philosopher; and Cyril beheld, with jealous eye, the gorgeous train of horses and slaves who crowded the door of her academy. A rumor was spread among the Christians, that the daughter of Theon was the only obstacle to the reconciliation of the prefect and the archbishop; and that obstacle was speedily removed. On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypatia was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the reader and a troop of savage and merciless fanatics: her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster-shells, and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames. The just progress of inquiry and punishment was stopped by seasonable gifts; but the murder of Hypatia has imprinted an indelible stain on the character and religion of Cyril of Alexandria."

I hope and pray to almighty Serapis that this film gets picked up by a distributor.

@Ethan Spanier: LORD! "…her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster-shells, and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames." Well, at least they killed her first. Having studied early Christian history I have no problem with the details of this script…as long as it tries to stay historically accurate. As I said earlier, my misreading of the time frame is what originally set me off.

I'm a fan of Rachel Weisz and like seeing her in a pro-feminist film. But I fear that this will not find a market and we will wind up seeing it on DVD. I hope I'm wrong.

Hi! May I just say straight away that i took part in this movie as a daily actor and worked for 23 days of the 76 days that this epic movie took to complete shooting. May I also say that Alejandro's aim not only as the director of this movie but more importantly perhaps as the co-writer of it simply wanted to do away with wholesome butchery and was happy to regulate the harshness of the violence involved. I've just seen the film in a special viewing that the production house MOD of Spain set up in my native country Malta where the film was exclusively shot, and was (and still am) surprised by the large amount of footage that has been left out. My appearances in the movie started in the second part of the film and my role was of one of the high ranking "terrible and terrifying" Parabalani. Now that the movie is out I'm perhaps allowed as per contract to speak about it. But I'll just stick to one point, namely, that Rachel Weisz, was left to much on her own to carry the whole weight of it. A male "name" would have, IMO served the film better. And this with all due respect to Max Minghella and Oscar Isaac. Otherwise, had Alejandro included all the deleted scenes, which then again would have made the movie some half an hour longer the prosaic flow form one incident to another would have been sweeter but perhaps not necessarily any better. At times the sequence just stuttered.

@Patricia: Hate to tell you this, but Hypatia lived in the 5th century, not 39 AD. This was a couple of hundred years after the establishment of Christianity as a force to reckon with and just before they brought us the Dark Ages, the Crusades, anti-Semitism, misogyny, endless wars, repression of science and the horrors of the Inquisition.

@George Wenzel:

Well said sir!

That's why this film is so important, especially now as the ignoramuses at Fox News wish us to return to the Dark Ages. Oppressive religions (regardless of belief) impede social growth. As Robert Kennedy bluntly stated, the danger about (religious) extremists “is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.”