Cleo Smith When the movie started, I decided that I would put my knowledge about Hypatia aside and give a chance to this attempt at telling her story. Even though that choice allowed me to enjoy the film, I was still disappointed by yet another blatant use of this woman's name in order to promote a certain idea.Historical inaccuracy aside, this is an expertly directed film, with excellent shots, literal and symbolic narrative, on point music and beautiful cinematography. The script's message hits you a bit over the head with the black- robed parabolani, the over-the-top dramatization of the destruction of the Serapeum, the very European "good guys" and the very Middle East Christians. Yeah, we got it already.On the downside, first of all, this movie about Hypatia doesn't tell Hypatia's story. This Hypatia is a modernized and very tuned down version of the real woman. And even though Rachel Weisz does an excellent job with the material that was given to her, giving us an utterly charming, absent minded, driven and powerful in a very dignified and quiet way scholar, that character is not Hypatia.Hypatia was first and foremost a philosopher, a neoplatonist. Hypatia had such deep faith in Plato's teachings, her whole life revolved around it. Her moral code was so high and similar to the teachings of Christianity, her integrity was such that gave her "immunity" to the religious battles that were raging in the city. Many of her students were influential Christians, who later joined what they learned from her with Christian faith. She was so knowledgeable, ethical, just and wise, her influence in the political and social circles was equal to that of the archbishop. Powerful stuff for that time. Which brings us to the reason behind her murder. Political jealousy it was, plain and simple. There was no battle between science and religion taking place, no feministic tendencies or unrealistic scientific revelations.In conclusion, even though, as I said, this is a solid film with a positive message, the way it is delivered is lacking. By using a historical figure and manipulating her story in order to serve the movie's purpose, these people became no better than the people they try to condemn. And please humanity, if you have nothing truthful or of any actual historic value to add, leave Hypatia alone. She's been your poster girl for 100 different purposes these last 500 years. A woman of value ended up being remembered for her brutal murder and not for her extraordinary life. There's a point where enough is enough.

SnoopyStyle It's 4th century AD Alexandria. It is still a Roman city but Christians are a new force to deal with. The empire is crumbling. Hypatia (Rachel Weisz) is a modern woman scientist and teacher with modern views of astronomy. Her student Orestes (Oscar Isaac) and her slave Davus (Max Minghella) are both in awe of her. Christians are hated and put down by most Romans. Hypatia tries to be treat everyone equally. The Christian agitator Ammonius converts Davus. Orestes tries to win Hypatia over but she rejects him. The Romans rally to kill the Christians for an insult to the gods, but it turns into an all out fight. The Romans retreat to the library. First there is an uneasy truce. The library is sacked. Peace generally returns but Christians continue to agitate. Learning is lost. Fanatism and zealotry descend on the community. Religious intolerance reign. Hypatia tries to advance learning but her place in the world becomes more and more precarious.Spanish director Alejandro Amenábar is taking on a lesser known historical drama. For the most religious viewers, this will seem like a diatribe against Christianity. There is certainly a distaste for religious rigidity. This is more of a history lesson. The science is interesting but probably not compelling for the general public. What this movie needs more than anything is humanity. The movie basically displaces human love with love of science. Rachel Weisz is playing this character so coldly. And I don't like the pulling back of the camera to a global view. It distances the audience from the characters. It does get heavy handed. The story works just enough and unique enough to be worthwhile viewing.

puffin-913-314654 This is a brilliant movie and I can barely fault it (my only complaint is that it implies that Hypatia was an Atheist, when as a Neoplatonist she was almost certainly a polytheist). I think the reason it has not been more successful is because it is about a time and place most people know very little about. I recommend this movie to all intelligent adults but, unless you have a reasonable background in classics and/or ancient history, I suggest you look up a bit about the period, and about Hypatia, first. The movie is not anti-Christian - a careful assessment of the story shows this (via a number of sympathetically portrayed Christians). Unfortunately so few Christians are actually aware of their early history that many of them will freak out when they realise how violent their history has been (at times) and declare the movie anti-Christian propaganda.

ashleybmeyer Great movie but it's not really *about* Hypatia. As in, the protagonist is not Hypatia. We switch between experiencing the three lead male characters' reactions to her and feelings about her. Rarely are the scenes and interactions about understanding Hypatia's mind or views or feelings; just understanding how her personality and actions effect the mind and feelings of the men around her. Her character is actually sort of just a Manic Pixie Dream Girl.It's a shame that the best movie about the first well-known female scientist can still fail the Bechdel Test. I'm not sure if there was even a single other female character in this film (other than extras). And while this movie is a remarkably accurate depiction of the historic events of Byzantine Alexandria, of the Christian population gaining influence and forcing women out of the aristocracy, this film's protagonists and target audience are men, and female viewers have little to relate to in the interactions of the characters.