At Oxford University, a professor and a grad student work together to try and stop a potential series of murders seemingly linked by mathematical symbols.
|The Oxford Murders Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 660x272 px||Total Size: 702 Mb|
|The Oxford Murders Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x192 px||Total Size: 272 Mb||
We have taken some photos of "The Oxford Murders". They represent actual movie quality.
Is this a worthless movie? Not quite. The twist ending is actuallypretty clever, but getting there requires slogging through some veryclumsy movie-making. The whole film is so botched you wish they coulddo it over again.This is based on a Spanish novel of the "intellectual thriller" sort,where grand ideas supposedly go hand in hand with crime-solving. Maybeit worked better on the printed page, but literally transferred to thescreen, it's all pretty silly. Especially ludicrous are all the redherrings that get slapped in our faces like wet fish. What's with theamputee lying naked in the hospital bed? I suppose this was to add agrotesque, absurdist touch to the "intellectual" proceedings, but ithad me whooping with laughter. Very lame and cringe-inducing, likelarge patches of the "intellectual" dialog.One problem: both the screenwriter and director are Spanish, and I amwondering how proficient they are in the English language. The scriptis tone-deaf; no actor could say some of these lines without soundingridiculous. And could the director even tell the difference betweenAmerican and British accents? Maybe not. The Brit actors are all suchpros they just grab the ham and run with it, but poor Elijah neededsome help here, and the director was not there for him, I suspectbecause he simply couldn't hear how wooden Elijah sounds.All in all, a nearly total misfire, but inanely entertaining enough towatch all the way through.
This review does contain spoilers.Although it is difficult to know what could spoil this film as it isalready extraordinarily bad. It is truly dreadful. The film opens withWittgenstein writing a philosophical work called The Tractatus. It iswell known that part of this was penned whilst Wittgenstein wasfighting on the Eastern front during WW1. In this film they have himsitting cross-legged in No Man's Land scribbling into his notebook.From such an absurdly low starting point it might be thought that thefilm could only improve but unfortunately this does not happen.Wittgenstein is only mentioned so that leading academic Arthur Seldom(John Hurt) could engage in some philosophybabble about truth. It isnot even good philosophybabble. Everything that purported to bemathematical or logical in this film reminded me of a hospital porter Ionce knew who had read a couple of books on popular science. After afew pints he would try to impress the nurses with his erudition.We are asked to believe that Hurt, an expert on logical series, devisesa series so mystifying that brilliant American maths student who hastravelled specifically to Oxford to work with Seldom cannot work outwhat it is Â although he eventually discovers it in what appears to bea children's book in the local book store. Quite why he had to rush tothe local bookstore at closing time and abuse the staff who were askinghim to leave when he was a postgraduate at Oxford university and mightpresumably have used the library like anyone else was not explained.But then nothing is explained in this film. There is no characterdevelopment. Each character arrives fully formed, clichÃ©d cardboardcut-outs the lot of them. Lorna (Leona Watling) is largely irrelevantto anything in the film although, fortunately, as a nurse, she does ofcourse know that the Pythagoreans also experimented with organtransplants! Her main role seems to be to provide a sex-scene. In anyother film such an obviously gratuitous sequence would have been anirritation but in this film it was a welcome diversion. I suppose ifyou are going to cook a post-coital meal of spaghetti bolognaise it issensible to stand at the stove wearing nothing but a plastic apron Âalthough she probably wouldn't have bothered if she had known thatMartin (Elijah Wood) was, moments later, going to take a handful of thestuff and drop it onto her breasts.There are many films with a completely ludicrous story line that havebeen saved by a clever and witty script. There is nothing clever orwitty about the script of this film. There isn't a single believableconversation at any point in the film. Everyone just stands arounddelivering exposition or pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Jim Carter,playing Inspector Peterson, must be delivering the worst lines of hiscareer. They wouldn't have been so bad if this film had been a spoofwhodunit. The direction is ponderous. There is no pace, there is nomomentum. An occasional surge in the music, even when accompanied byfireworks (yes, the score is as clichÃ©d as everything else in thisfilm), fails to generate the least excitement.For a film that is meant to be about a logical puzzle it is unfortunatethat it doesn't even hang together on its own terms. At one pointSeldom tells the police that before he finds the body he had received anote from the mysterious serial killer but threw the note away. Indeed,we see him throw the note away. Sadly, we later discover there is noserial killer and he is making it all up Â so why was there any note tothrow away? A crucial point towards the end of the film (if a film thisbad can have any crucial points) is when Martin discovers there isnothing written on the napkin. It is explained that Seldom had to carryout this deceit so that he could convince Martin that he knew what thenext symbol in the series was going to be even though he didn't reallyknow. Quite apart from the fact that the series of symbols turns out tobe trivial it also transpires that Seldom is making the whole thing upso it wouldn't have mattered anyway.If the film says anything at all, it says that small and apparentlyinconsequential things can have a large a dramatic effect on theoutcome. Yes, yes, as any half aware teenager will be able to tell youit's the butterfly effect. Who knows what consequences this review willhave? Hopefully, it will encourage one or two of you to find a moreentertaining way of spending your evening.
Although I got the feeling that I was watching an overlong episode ofthe old Inspector Morse series from the BBC, The Oxford Murders is anintelligent and literate murder mystery as only crimes based at Oxfordcan be.John Hurt steals the show as the arrogant iconoclastic mathematicsgenius of whom young Elijah Wood from America has come to study underand to have him guide his Ph'D thesis. It's the opportunity of alifetime, but a series of homicides that are linked by a killerdropping Pythagorean symbols at the crimes intrigues this would beHolmes and Watson pair.Both Hurt and Wood are inextricably drawn into the crime because victimone was Anna Massey, a terminally ill widow of a former colleague ofHurt's. Wood has taken lodging there and almost gets into an affairwith her daughter Julie Cox who is also living there and taking care ofMassey. He does later get involved with another Hurt's student/protÃ©gÃ©sEleanor Watling.Some nice cinematography especially at Oxford during their Guy FawkesDay celebration aid the film which does drag in spots. Still theperformances are good and the script literate. John Hurt is nothingless than outstanding. Give it a look if your taste runs to cinema thatdoesn't have to have a lot of violence to make it watchable for you.
Wood and Hurt's scenes were magical and brilliant. But Wood's scenes with the girls seemed forced and unnatural. I often felt like I was watching two different movies.
If I had paid money for this I would be more than a little annoyed. Bad acting, trite directing, even Anna Massey and John Hurt can't save this dreadful shlock. They must have both needed the money. I could go on but it would be a waste of time when all you really need to know is 'Don't Bother'.
The movie it's a 5. It has some good things; like photography, music, timing, of Alex De LaIglesia's style,but that's about it of Alex. Locations, if you likeEnglish classic style. Beside that the movie is a very common one.Everything happens also very quick and "easy".But I think that Elijah wood (represed gay who is in love with theprofessor,i don't know if he is gay in real life, but..... if i had tobet.... ; and the love scene with spaghetti; and "cliche" Podorov, ruinthe movie for me.Watch it on DVDI don't read the novel, but the movie made me want to read it, i hopeit's better.
The Oxford Murders will undoubtedly be likened to the unimpressivelyexecuted The Da Vinci Code except that since it's a foreign film, itsadditional draw is the expected gratuitous nudity.While the delicious Leonor Watling certainly delivers on that aseveryone's love interest Nurse Lorna, it's jarring to see her at itwith Elijah Wood, who still can't shake off his most memorable role asa gay hobbit. Somehow, he manages to earn leading man status as Martin,an American exchange student at Oxford University, desperately seekingan acerbic but brilliant professor Arthur Seldom (John Hurt) to be histhesis mentor. Instead, they get embroiled in a homicide and end upputting their heads together to stop what may be a serial killerapparently linked by math symbols. Julie Cox is positively creepy asthe cellist Beth, Martin's housemate and daughter of Mrs. Eagleton, theequally chilly Anna Massey.A whodunit that doesn't take its plot so seriously despite Wood'soverly huge eyes, The Oxford Murders certainly delivers art-house-stylewith its super stark imagery and crisp cinematography. Enjoy directorÃlex de la Iglesia's impeccable skills shown off especially in awonderfully choreographed uber-long continuous shot in homage toPsycho/Citizen Kane following the characters outdoors, inside a shop,back outside and finally resting onto the scene of the crime.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning** Sunday Night * Monday Morning American student Martin (Elijah Wood) arrives in Oxford on a foreignexchange programme and straight away gets tongue's wagging during alecture when he challenges the theory of Professor Seldom (John Hurt)that maths doesn't hold the exact answer to everything. But thismismatched pair are thrown together when the first of a series ofmurders starts that seems to throw both their theories into disarray.Spanish director Isla de Iglesia's film The Oxford Murders opened to apretty much non-existent audience earlier last year and arrived on DVDwith barely a whimper too. It's daytime, Miss Marple esquire murdermystery presentation and unusually cheap looking opening title'ssequence (how many production companies were behind it?) may be anindicator of why this was. Like most thrillers of this ilk, it'sprobably best seen twice to get your head round it, but hearing two mendrone on about symbols and theories for just under two hours, howeverentertaining Hurt's pro waffling is, was never going to make for themost exciting viewing. Maths was never my favourite subject. **
As murder mysteries go, "This Oxford Murders" is one of the mostintriguing I've ever seen. The solution is so full of twists andsurprises that I could never have seen it coming. This aspect of themovie is quite simply brilliant.Unfortunately nearly everything else in this movie tanks. The dialogueis frequently stilted, and stalls out unless Elijah Wood and John Hurtare the only ones in the scene (and even then it falls down at times).The only other performer who rises above this awful script is JimCarter as Inspector Peterson, the man in charge of the investigation.Even Burn Gorman, who shone in TV's "Torchwood," isn't up to this.There's also bits of nudity, a couple of sex scenes, and other bitsthat seem designed to titillate more than enrapture. They're completelyunnecessary to the story, serving only to distract and confuse theviewer. Several actions of the characters, some of them vital to thestory and others just thrown in for no good reason, areincomprehensible and left unexplained.The train wreck becomes complete when we meet Dr. Seldom's friend, whohas not only a degenerative bone disease but also a serious mentalillness that led him to attempt a self-lobotomy with a nail gun.Presently I felt like following suit. This man has a part to play inthe story, but it's not big enough to warrant such an extremebackstory.The only reasons I watched until the end were because of the compellingmystery, and the fact that I'd paid $3 to rent it. The movie, however,is barely worth $3 even as an intellectual property, let alone worththat much to rent.
Directed by Alex De La Iglesia, and based on the eponymous book byGuillermo Martinez, The Oxford Murders is an unconventional but failedthriller.Martin (Wood), a young Ph.D. Philosophy student arrives in Cambridgewith a scholarship trying to get Professor Seldom's (Hurt) attentionand direction for his thesis. A series of symbol-connected murders turnthem into investigation buddies and friends.The story discusses a series of philosophical and ethical questions: 1/the meaning of life 2/ the role of philosophy and mathematics in dailylife 3/ the concept of human imperfection 4/ the adaptability of ourminds and philosophical approach to different moments in life. Do ourPhilosophic principles, personal or not, stand the irrationality oflife? 4/ the concept of moral responsibility. The whodunit is just away to explore the philosophical points the movie wants to make. Seldomand Martin represent, at the beginning of the film, two different andeven opposed ways of approaching and understanding the world and life.However, you will notice in Seldom and Martin's last conversation inthe movie that both of them have shifted to the principle the othersupported at the beginning. Circumstances matter to sustain or shiftyour philosophical principles and view of the world (Gasset, notWittgenstein). We humans are not mathematical axioms, nor is life.The first problem I found with the film is that, if you want to exploresome philosophical points, you better chose a story that is suited forthat exploration in film. Even more, if you decide that a murder storyis what you want, you have to built an excellent mystery thriller to gowell with it. Unfortunately, this is not the case here. The thrillerhas not much thrill, although the mystery is intriguing. The tempo,atmosphere and music of the movie are not good for a thriller, andwithout those key elements, the rest crumbles; in fact, the music wasdistracting and unfocused. On the other hand, I thought that the moviedid not have any English flavor despite being filmed in England andwith (mostly) English actors. I don't mean to say that you cannot shootin a country or city that is not yours without the movie resenting, butthat you have to be familiar with it to be able to get its vibe, itsessence and portray it in a movie. The art department is perhaps theone to blame here. Some of the mathematical and philosophical goofs areremarkable, too, like number phi instead of pi (no Ph.D. student inPhilosophy would make that sort of mistake), or Bormat's theoreminstead of Fermat's, among the most evident.I found the cast badly matched, and the acting bad or mediocre. I hadthe impression that the cast was a bit whimsical, something that Alexfancied or could get, not what the characters needed. John Hurt, ElijahWood, and Jim Carter (as Inspector Petersen) are correct in theirperformances. Leonor Watling is just OK in her unsubstantial role asnurse Lorna, mostly there to give some romance and sex to the maincharacter. Dominique Pinon plays, once more, her usual role of sweetfreak. July Cox's performance is dreadful as Beth; she seemed lost in atheatrical monologue, so exaggerated in her performance. Alsotheatrical, over the top, and even ridiculous, are the performances ofAnna Massey as nasty Mrs. Eagleton and Burn Gorman as Yuri Podorov. Ithink that they all suffer from a poor actors direction because Alex DeLa Iglesia has a poor English and is not able to work at a deep levelwith native speakers.I am a fan of De La Iglesia, and this movie feels like it is not his.The script's premises are fascinating, but the outcome film is totallyforgettable mostly because of De La Iglesia's laziness at directing andfocusing. What I will remember of the movie are the philosophicalpremises and approach, and the flashback story of the 19th century,which is very much De La Iglesia.Disappointing.
I have liked the movies from director Ãlex de la Iglesia pretty much(specially,El DÃa de la Bestia and La Comunidad).They have so muchenergy and frenetic tones that make them enormouslyentertaining.However,The Oxford Murders is the first film by him I donot like.The Oxford Murders lacks of that energy I mentioned.The movieis very slow,so it easily bores.Besides,this movie has a lot ofredundant and irrelevant moments which could have easily been edited.Atleast,the actors made a decent work.Elijah Wood,John Hurt and LeonorWatling bring decent performances.Another fail I found in the movie isthat the story it tells is completely uninteresting,so I did not carefor what happened.The Oxford Murders is a weak film which bored mepretty much.I wish de la Iglesia will have more luck with his nextmovie.
I have liked the movies from director Ãlex de la Iglesia pretty much(specially,El DÃa de la Bestia and La Comunidad).They have so muchenergy and frenetic tones that they are enormouslyentertaining.However,The Oxford Murders is the first film by him I donot like.The Oxford Murders lacks of that energy I mentioned.The movieis very slow,so it easily bores.Besides,this movie has a lot ofredundant and irrelevant moments which could have easily been edited.Atleast,the actors made a decent work.Elijah Wood,John Hurt and LeonorWatling bring decent performances.Another fail I found in the movie isthat the story it tells is completely uninteresting,so I did not carefor what happened.The Oxford Murders is a weak film which bored mepretty much.I wish de la Iglesia recovers from this misstep in his nextmovie.
There's nothing in this world as intolerable, as agitative and worthy of derision as a stupid feature film that's supposed to be clever. However, this is the bread and butter of one Ãlex de la Iglesia, whose career has been horribly loosed from the geographical and cultural borders of his native Spain. For those unfamiliar with his transgressions, de la Iglesia's been churning out trite genre fare for nearly two decades - the sort of overheated drivel that's gradually homogenizing and dulling Spanish cinematic culture. Some twisted prick decided that de la Iglesia was fit to helm a film adaptation of Guillermo Martinez's novel of the same title (which isn't safe either because when I'm good and ready, I'll track it down, read it and give it another beating for good measure), and he was right.At least de la Iglesia is prompt, immediately bombarding his audience with stupidity: the first scene depicts a trench-pocked WWI landscape in which Ludwig Wittgenstein sits, oblivious to bombs and bullets about him as he scribbles down notes for his groundbreaking philosophical text, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Never mind that Wittgenstein actually wrote most of it as a prisoner of war in Cassino; apparently, this is way cooler.Somehow, it all just goes downhill from there.To summarize the premise with merciful brevity: John Hurt is a renowned mathematics professor, Elijah Wood his ambitious student. Do they engage in an erudite study of mathematical logic and equations? No, stupid! That would be boring! Instead, they spend most of their screen time badly explaining and paraphrasing Wittgenstein, Heisenberg, Fibonaccian series, GÃ¶del's Theorem, the Vesica Piscis, etc. while attempting to solve a series of murders, most of which could be sorted out with simple logic - that's how predictable most of this is. Typing Hurt's name in the same sentence as Wood's triggers a strange and wholly unpleasant sensation; that the latter has top billing is merely depressing.As usual, Hurt is terrific in his obnoxious role; now and again, he almost generates something resembling depth. If you can somehow divorce his spectacular presence from the banal drivel issuing from his mouth, you'll recognize that he's the only person in the entire cast who salvages any of his dignity. Vacantly wide-eyed, Wood and his overripe prospective love interests/murder suspects (Leonor Watling and Julie Cox) all rush stiffly through their ludicrous dialogue, as though they're as desperate to get through this as we are. Absolutely devoid of any charm or talent, these three often seem as though they're engaged in a lavish reading instead of actual acting. Far more ridiculous, actor-director Alex Cox plays an obsessive, deranged academic who wastes away from cancer and self-lobotomizes with a nail gun - the only entertaining shot in the whole movie and a comfort for anyone who sat through his worthless Akira Kurosawa documentary or Repo Chick, the unbearable cash-in sequel to his cult classic, Repo Man.Even at his very worst, Wood's plank-like delivery is no match for the excruciating Burn Gorman as a manic Russian exchange student, the token red herring. In possibly the single worst performance that I've seen in a major motion picture, Gorman masticates his every scene furiously in a thin-lipped maw, affecting an accent of some sort that sounds vaguely French. At least Walter Koenig used to sound as though he was supposed to be a Russian, albeit an obvious counterfeit.There's so much here that makes me cringe: Wood's asinine pronouncement, "I believe in the number pi!" and his constant whining; a torturous excess of stilted, pompous dialogue; pointless flashbacks that only serve to pad the running time and render every obvious clue even more unmistakable; a succession of stale plot twists; physically offensive sex scenes (Wood's scrawny, pasty body is topped by a head that's racing unpleasantly into middle age, and I had to watch it smooch and screw); an extraneous telling of Guy Fawkes' exploits; worst of all, an aimless conclusion in which Hurt's character attempts to shift blame using a simple, easily-defused logical fallacy that's supposed to blow all of our minds wide open.De la Iglesia's style is slick, but also not his own. It's not enough to call this Hitchcockian; utilizing meaningful, off-center close-ups, lengthy tracking shots (which are risibly ostentatious, especially in comparison to Hitchcock's far more refined sequences) and Kiko de la Rica's shadowy, gorgeous photography, his attempts to ape the style of a cinema legend are nothing less than enraging. Even Roque BaÃ±os' score sounds as though he cherry-picked and tweaked passages from a selection of Bernard Herrmann themes. If I wanted a Hitchcock film, I'd watch a Hitchcock film. De la Iglesia isn't even derivative in a timely manner; ripping off Hitch hasn't been in vogue for decades.If this is where British cinema has come to rest and Spanish cinema is heading, I'm very sorry to see that they're following the stupid, mediocre lead of their U.S. counterpart. This really is the worst sort of bad movie. It's not fun and its milieu is sterile. It's ludicrous in a way that makes one wince rather than smile. Utterly gutless and derivative to a blatant fault, it represents everything that's wrong with contemporary film making. Let this be a lesson to Studio Canal and all of the other financiers of this failed production - when an able crew and a gifted, aging star are available, don't squander their talents on a hackneyed story or the direction of a bloated Basque who generates dumb black comedies and silly crime dramas.I had to watch an old favorite just to get the rancid aftertaste of this crap out of my mouth.
A really bad movie, one of the worst of all time. I'm led to believethis was the directors' first 'serious' movie - well, it shows, itstinks. It is preposterous and stupid, idiotic and unwatchable, it ismoronic and a total waste of money. I won't be watching anything elseby this director because I have better things to spend my money on. Tothe fool who wrote don't read the bad comments (mainly because beingfrom Spain, where his beloved director is from, he loved it) I say asan English resident please DO read the bad comments because they showhow bad this movie is. Had anybody remotely connected with the movieactually done any research, they'd know that in 2008 British policevehicles and ambulances do not use old minibuses, or panda cars withthe 1970's style light on them, perhaps the directors and writers etccould have made sure this detail was correct but as they wasted themoney they'd been given on just getting any old tat that looks like apolice car/ambulance (doesn't matter what era) it looks shoddy andcheap, just like the movie overall. A terminal cancer ward would not,for instance, be hidden away in the bowels of a disused hospital wherethe dead go to die - how insulting!!! Our cancer wards are staffed byhard working professionals who give care and attention. NOTICE TO LAZYDIRECTORS - we do not have hospitals full of nurses kissing andswapping tongues in full view of everyone while they are on duty,neither do they have a convenient mobile phone in their pockets, whichserves to show up the laziness of those making the movie to fill a plothole. One of the most idiotic scenes is where Wood says to Hurt 'I trust myown eyes' and then pratfalls into a hole being dug by workmen is SO SObad - I mean come on!!! it's so stupid. This is a nightmare of a movie, please please give it a miss. Even theridiculous twist at the end does nothing to save it's face. Whichairport were we in, someone's office building more like. I absolutelyhate movies like this where I spend money to watch it and find it is souseless. So please go spend your money on something which is wellwritten, acted and directed but not this poor excuse for a movie, it isdire!Oxford is a beautiful city but we saw none of it; what a shame that allthis movie did was borrow the name of the place. This is so badlywritten, directed and acted that this lovely place was never seen -perhaps it's just as well, and I'd love to see this done again in thehands of an experienced director with better actors, writers andresearchers and then see what a good movie it would be. This version isrubbish!
... that shouldn't have been adapted for film. i haven't read the book, but it's obvious. it's disjointed. the script is awful. the actors are good (John Hurt is still the best), but the film is not.
If anyone requires proof that Elijah Wood cannot act and lacks anypersonality or screen presence, they need to go no further than theirlocal video store to rent this movie. Sure he was OK in The Lord of TheRings trilogy but that was because he was masked by a big pointed earsand long hair and some great scenery. Ever since , his performances inother movies have stunk. In Green Street ( a terrible film) he playedan unconvincing American Soccer hooligan. He added nothing to thedisappointing Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind and in The OxfordMurders he could have been a piece of the scenery he was so wooden butstrangely enough he's not the worst thing about the movie. November 1993. Martin, an American student at Oxford University Â a bigfish out of water in a strange pond. Martin knows one thing for surethough, he wants Arthur Seldom as his thesis director. Seldom has abrilliant mind and is considered one of the leading lights in logicalthinking. In a public lecture, Seldom quotes Wittgenstein's Tractatus to deny thepossibility of truth. Martin contests by asserting his faith in themathematics under reality. Later, Martin and Seldom coincide andattempt to reconcile their apparent differences. This impromptu meethowever leads both men to discover Martin's landlady brutally murdered.Seldom declares to the police that he had received a note with hisfriend's address marked as "the first of a series". As Seldom is anauthority on logical series, he suspects that a serial murderer isdefying his intelligence Â murdering his friends oneÂbyÂone in anapparent attack on the professor. Martin, Seldom and Lorna , a Spanishnurse, will try to guess the following terms of the series as themurders continue.Ãlex de la Iglesia is described as a Cult director in his native Spainbut i have to wonder if that is a spelling mistake.I have never seen any of his movies but if they are as bad as this onethen i wont be bothering. The Oxford Murders really is a mess of afilm. From the very start when we see John Hurt Babbling on aboutMathematics and his theories about the ultimate truth and this socalled " Who Dunnit " went straight over my head.I grew up watching some fantastic old Agatha Christie movies starringPeter Ustinov. Very clever films that were easy to follow yet nearimpossible to guess the outcome.In The Oxford Murders i didn't care who died , why they died or howthey died! In fact i was losing the will to live myself.But despite the appalling acting from Elijah Wood he wasn't the worst.There is an actor called Burn Gorman who plays Podorova ,a student atthe university , his acting is so bad it has to be seen to be believed.For some reason they have dubbed his voice, and badly. His top lipseems uncontrollable and it's the worst case of over acting i have seenin a very long time.The only redeeming feature about this film is the beautiful LeonorWatling. Someone i will watching out for in the future.I'm willing to bet that The Oxford Murders looked great on paper, buton the screen there is far too much nonsense to deal with and way toomuch high-brow intellectualism. Give this one a miss.2 out of 10
The plot: A disillusioned student and his cynical professor help thepolice try to solve a murder mystery based on mathematics and logic.I had high hopes for this movie, based on the opening. It was engaging,intelligent, and talking about some topics that I really enjoy.Unfortunately, I should have realized that it would degenerate into apretentious mess, as it tried desperately to prove how witty thewriters could be.Still, I was willing to accept that it was going to turn into a cheesySeven clone. The cast is really impressive, and it at least pays lipservice to some interesting ideas, even if they are a bit cursory orshallow, at times. Then again, I doubt most people want to hearphilosophy or mathematics lectures in the middle of their murdermystery. I'm not quite sure where the proper balance is, but I thinkSeven was much closer than The Oxford Murders.There are some requisite red herrings, plot twists, and Sherlock Holmesstyle deductions. There are also romantic subplots, academic politics,and even something of a coming-of-age tale, about an idealistic youngman who discovers, to his horror, that his idol is a colossal jerk.Although I identified more with the colossal jerk than the idealisticprotagonist (the opposite of what you're supposed to do, I think), bothcharacters are given time to shine and expound on their individualbeliefs. Neither the romantic subplot nor the romantic interest herselfare given as much attention, making them seem a bit like plot devicesthan fully-realized elements of the movie.This is an inoffensive movie that often feels like it could have beenbetter. Near the end, I was getting a bit impatient, and I began tryingto predict the movie's ending, rather than concentrating on the movieitself. I wasn't entirely correct, but I was in the right ballpark. I'msure that, if you care enough and pay close enough attention, you'll beable to do better than me. It doesn't take a logical genius to predicthow a genre film will end, once you've seen enough of them.
This film tries so hard to be clever and witty that it has unwittinglyoutwitted itself into witlessness. Everybody talks like they're thewittiest person on earth. There is so much wit going around that thecharacters begin to drown in it!!! unfortunately, with all this focuson clever dialog we end up getting no realist character interactionsthroughout the entire film, i.e. there is a scene when Elijah meets hisroommate for the first time. The roommate is sitting at his deskstudying while Elijah heatedly packs his bags, after a minute ofpacking his bags, the roommate looks up and says "you must be Martin?"and then he goes on with some more lame one-line "witty" remarks aboutElijah bag-packingÂ WTF? He didn't notice "Martin" enter the room twominutes earlier??? Wouldn't they have spoken too each other when theyfirst met and not two minutes later! It was creepy and felt likeanother excuse for the director to show us (the audience) just howclever he was for setting up more "witty" banter.The entire movie is like this! No one actually talk to each otherthroughout the entire movie. All the characters talk "at" each other,like a bunch of strangers in a coffee shop. It's weird and a bituncomfortable. More importantly, it's completely UNBELIEVABLE!!! Otherthen that, it's just a fair murder mystery. Actually, it was a littleboring and difficult to sit through! I was going to give it 5 stars forthe beautiful cinematography, but the acting and directing deserve abig fat zero! Overall, I'll give it 2 stars for effort.PS / I was sincerely looking forward to this movie if for no otherreason then to see Elijah Woods back on the silver screen. What adisappointment! The biggest death in this movie, might be that of hiscareer :(
The Oxford Murders starts intriguingly enough with a camera shakingintroduction to the hell of the first world war. It soon dawns on theviewer that this is a cheap trick, a flashback expensively shot,whichis repeatedly employed in the movie to break up the drudgery of themain plot (The Da Vinci Code anyone?). Alex De Iglesias had emergedfrom the Iberian Peninsula with a reputation of a talented filmmaker,however he forces his darkly comic touches on the "Who Dunnit" format,in a manner that feels absurd. The synopsis of the plot involves Frodo(now fully grown and a mathematical whiz) travelling to Oxford inpursuit of academic excellence and a University lecturer (John Hurt -looking like he's just dropped his last cigarette in the rain as usual)with a differing view of the world through numbers. Cue some of themost action packed Blackboard writing scenes since the excellent "ABeautiful Mind". More unlikely still Frodo appears to be wearing amagic amulet that results in any woman he meets having no issues withthe height difference. The amulet also provides Frodo the belief thatbad squash players automatically qualify as geniuses (Should that begeni? Anyone help me out?) The University town then provides thebackdrop for a series of murders that our intrepid hero seeks to solvethrough a battle of logic with the professor. I soon questioned my ownlogic of going to watch this film as I realised that any oft filmedStraight to TV Agatha Christie fare is 10 times as intelligent as thisalleged "thriller". I should have watched Alien Vs Predator - at leastit knows it's tosh.
This must be the worst film ever! I've never seen such drivel in mywhole career of film-going. The plot is totally unbelievable as are thecharacters. There is no suspense. Some events are totally incredible,like accessing books in a bookshop that is closed, where the requiredbooks miraculously come to hand on the same shelf! The account of thephilosophy of Wittgenstein is garbled and inaccurate. The guessing ofsequences of images is laughable. The ending is totally crass. I couldgo on! At one point I thought the whole film was meant to be a comedyand that we were supposed to laugh. But I fear it is meant to be takenas a thriller. How on earth John Hurt agreed to act in such awfulrubbish is inconceivable!