Lack of good storyline.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This movie depicts 4th century Alexendria at a time when its streets were crowded with Greek philosophers, Ptolemaic Egyptians, Roman soldiers, Jews and early Christians. We focus on the library, although there was so much more to this important city at this time.The film succeeds spectacularly in bringing this to life. This alone makes the movie worth watching.But even more than that, the movie tells a story based on a series of events involving group of historical figures: Theon, Hypatia, Orestes, St Cyril of Alexandria and others. Hypatia is the interesting one here, passionately and credibly played by Rachel Weisz. The movie is not quite historically accurate, but it is a hell of a good story based loosely on historical events.But wait, even more than that, the film has religious fundamentalism and intolerance as its main theme. I guess you could say it takes the side of science over religion, freedom over faith, reason over madness. It shows the exact moment we entered the Dark Ages.In my second viewing, I came to appreciate Oscar Isaac's performance even more. He is a wonderful actor. The really powerful character here is Davus. I'm not sure this fascinating, complex character was properly fleshed out in the script, but it was a tremendous performance by Max Minghella.I absolutely loved this intelligent, moving and important movie. I wish all movies were like this. I didn't want the movie to end. They should use it as the basis for a mini-series.

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.

A most excellent film, giving it 5 stars plus. Rachel Weisz is luminous as the heroine of the movie as Hypatia. All of the other actors were equally outstanding. For me, a glimpse of the Alexandria of old was exquisitely brought to life. The history which this movie encompassed is bittersweet led by persons fueled by blind adherence to religious and fundamental beliefs which curtailed independent thought and inquiry, thrusting mankind into the Dark Ages until the Rennaisance. I've seen this movie more than 3-4 times now, and it still continues to inspire deep respect for those "thinkers" of classical antiquity. My hat's off to Alejandro Aménabar for bringing us this truthful chapter so that, as Carl Sagan so aptly put it, "we may NOT let it happen again."

Where does one begin to take to task this fictional diatribe against Christians and the early Imperial Church. Alexandria was known to be a city that often was embroiled in heated riots that cost lives even before the Common Era and the advent of the Church. The film portrays the Christian church of the period to be violently intolerant and zealously misogynistic in their religious zeal and ensconced in superstition. The events in the film never happened. In 48 BCE, it was Julius Caesar (a pagan) who invaded Egypt and destroyed part of the Alexandrian library in his war against Pompey. Strabo, a pagan historian, who died around 23 CE, spoke of the main library as a thing of the past. What was left of this main library was probably destroyed in Aurelius' wars of Imperial unification when the Great Museum to which the main library was adjunct in 272 CE. By 391 CE, the library was not in existence. Yet, many post 18th century scholars and historians state that Christians destroyed the temple under the direction of Bishop Theophilus' in 391 CE confusing clashes between pagans and Christians as part and parcel of the main library's destruction. This is a clear untruth and what is sad it is a deliberate one at that.However, in 391 CE, the Serapeum was destroyed. Christians were captured and murdered in the temple of this secondary library by pagans. Since the murdered Christians were to be considered martyrs there was a call for restraint so as not to taint their sacrifice so there was no riot or clash. The Emperor Theodosius ordered the complex to be demolished while letting the murderers go free. The Christians were allowed under Roman governmental oversight to participate in the dismantling of the temple but no other structures were harmed. Additional damage to the building itself probably took place in 7th century by Muslim invaders. However, there was no burning of the library's collection by Christians. Both a goodly number of Christian and pagan accounts of that day exist and there is not one mention of such a burning of the library's collection. Even Eunapius of Sardi who had no great love for Christianity makes no such claim and there are even hints that by this time the secondary library had no collection. Pagan historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, describes the Serapeum as being no longer a library just a few years before its destruction. There is not one written source before the 18th century that has claimed that Christians were responsible for either the collection's destruction for either the main or secondary library nor is there any other evidence proving such. The idea that Christians and the Church were responsible for destroying the Library(ies) of Alexandria in 391 CE is a fiction made up by English historian Edward Gibbon in the 18th century.As to the murder of the brilliant Platonic philosopher, trained scientist, and author of mathematical commentaries, Hypatia. While a woman of note, there is no record of her making any important contributions to her fields of expertise. Just as the recent Cosmos series totally mislead its viewership concerning Giardano Bruno, this movie (and so many others) have created a fictional heroine to dovetail with the fictional history of banal, anti-intellectual Christians on a murderous rampage against pagans especially one pagan woman. Hypatia, who was sixty at the time, was indeed murdered and dismembered, by a Christian fraternity founded to help the poor. She was killed not because she was a woman (female intellectuals were not uncommon in Eastern Empire in either pagan or Christian circles) or a philosopher/scientist (this class of people in Alexandria included both pagans, Jews, and Christians and there was no Christian prejudice against science or philosophy). Hypatia was not perceived as an enemy of the Christian faith and counted many of the educated Christians of Alexandria as her friends, many of whom were students. The Christian historian Socrates, who admired her, states that she was killed because she embroiled herself in a political war between the Imperial prefect and the city's patriarch and it was the denizens of the city's slums that took matters into their own hands without any Church approval (even though the movie lays the blame at the feet of St. Cyril of Alexandria) and was more about her social class and standing and belonging to the wrong side of a political war where this murderous mob was concerned. While the higher, educated classes participated in each other's lives no matter their religious and philosophical differences, the lower classes before and after Christianity's advent were tribal and violent. These Christian lower-class denizens could be rightly compared to Europe's soccer hooligans and the cross was simply one more banner to wave. Such is the truth while the movie and its attempt to paint the Christian Church as a violent, banal, intolerant, and misogynistic community is anti-Christian propaganda and a deliberate lie.