It is certainly the case that few of the Fathers enjoy a lower reputation in the English-speaking world than Cyril. “Chalcedon451” suggests that we have Gibbon to blame for this.
He’s probably right. Few other than specialists had any access to the Fathers, and the impact of Decline and Fall on the literate world was immense. His slurs on Eusebius are still repeated; his negative opinion of Cyril was likewise definitive.
It is telling that the 19th century American pirate edition of the Fathers, the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, while it reprinted the translations of Augustine and Chrysostom, left sternly to one side the translations of Cyril of Alexandria in the same series.
I have always felt that Cyril suffers from his association with the Nestorian dispute. That was a matter of high politics, in which he is unlikely to appear very pleasing to our eyes. It would be much, much better if we could start with something we DO sympathise with, the Contra Julianum. One of the last apologetic works of antiquity, the arguments of Cyril would at least be directed against the anti-Christianity of Julian the Apostate, rather than Nestorius, with whom many of us feel some sympathy. A translation of this work is in progress; but it seems unlikely that it will be accessible to non-specialists.
It will be interesting to see what is said in the blog series, all the same.