Alejandro Amenabar'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.
Agora (2009) 1080p YIFY Movie
Agora (2009) 1080p
A historical drama set in Roman Egypt, concerning a slave who turns to the rising tide of Christianity in the hopes of pursuing freedom while also falling in love with his master, the famous female philosophy and mathematics professor Hypatia of Alexandria.
IMDB: 7.126 Likes
The Synopsis for Agora (2009) 1080p
Alexandria, 391 AD: Hypatia teaches astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy. Her student Orestes is in love with her, as is Davus, her personal slave. As the city's Christians, led by Ammonius and Cyril, gain political power, the great institutions of learning and governance may not survive. Jump ahead 20 years: Orestes, the city's prefect, has an uneasy peace with Christians, led by Cyril. The Christians enforce public morality; first they see the Jews as their obstacle, then nonbelievers. Hypatia has no interest in faith; she's concerned about the movement of celestial bodies and the brotherhood of all. What place is there for her?
The Director and Players for Agora (2009) 1080p
The Reviews for Agora (2009) 1080p
Extraordinary movie-making at its best.Reviewed byvnsfthVote: 10/10
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 haven't read all the reviews...just the first few...and there was a very good one...the one about the movie being 'overambitious' and why. but as i was watching the movie i was impressed at how it was not going to be routine in a number of ways. the heroine was not going to cave to lust. OR fear of death if she must renounce her beliefs/perspectives. albeit, and this is the ironic problem, they are more deeply held. but not religious. not 'THEIR' religion. the irony continues with the heroine being 'crucified' for her beliefs... and i just didn't see that mentioned in the reviews i read... to me it's what made it a really good film...all the ellipses within the ellipses... yes. it was flawed in its telling...certain aspects were not as developed as they might've been...and they ground against each other at times. but nothing about any of the dynamics felt false... as has been pointed out, religion was once again used to front political agendas/ambitions. charismatic characters channeled the unrest present in any populous district...the yang to the settled/incumbent yin. atrocities were committed by all sides. but the center held despite the gravitational pull of all the different dynamics in the film. lots of which i haven't mentioned b/c i've read them spoken about already in other reviews/comments. no need to go over the same ground twice. anyways... i was surprised at the high rating the film got here b/c i really didn't experience it as a crowd pleaser. i don't want to REALLY throw out spoilers here, so i can't explain some of the reasons i'm writing this. but when you get to the end of the story you'll understand. still...i really admire the courage the studios had to put money behind a movie that told an interesting story on its own terms. not following some Hollywood ellipse and maybe throwing in a feelgood thread or two so that people don't leave feeling bummed out and wanting their money back... i can take a story like this. and thanks for respecting that possibility.