The Oxford Murders (2008)

Simply Perfect

Powerful

One of my all time favorites.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The problem with this film is that it is quite bad while still having some good acting, looking good, having pretty exciting camera work, and being fairly engrossing. The problem is, you may have been a victim of Faked Engrossment, since nothing pans out to justify such engrossment. I note that the British commentators here are even harder on it than the American ones, but surely a film that has no redeeming qualities (according to both factions) must have something going for it, so let's list some pluses and minuses: 1. The acting is terrific, but only if you are watching John Hurt, Anna Massey and Jim Carter. 2. The acting is dreadful, but only if you are watching Elijah Wood and Leonor Watling. 3. The acting reaches a new nadir of awfulness but only if you are watching Burn Gorman, the only actor I can recall who, seemingly without the aid of make-up, can give Lon Chaney Sr. a run for his money in the looks department, while simultaneously proving to be the legitimate heir of Tod Slaughter where acting style is concerned. 4. The Gorman role is pretty wild and flavorful, yet his character has no bearing on any aspect of the plot. He seems simply there to overact and scare children. 5. The film is set in 1993, with no reason or explanation given for that choice. 6. The Oxford police are the most all-embracing investigators in history, sharing every clue they get with an Oxford professor and student, having them share body viewings in the morgue, murder methods, etc. 7. The intellectual call on the viewer is much too much, with discussions of higher mathematics and philosophy so rarefied that most people will not be able to follow them (although we are assured by more than one British commentator that this stuff is taught them in their cradles; I knew American education lacked something, so I guess I now know what it is). 8. Except for the actors, the film seems to be totally Spanish-made by people who don't speak English (at least if the concluding bonus interviews are any indication), which does not augur well for a story and dialog that are so incredibly English and pseudo-intellectual in concept (although based on a Spanish novel). 9. There is use of obviously really retarded children as a plot device, which reflects credit on absolutely no one. 10. There are really good tracking shots of many of the actors, usually from behind and as they are in a rush to get somewhere, that gives some life to the production. 10. Everybody seems to dislike the Guy Fawkes celebration scene, but it is quite well-filmed, what with a big rooftop chase above while the festivities (including a full chamber orchestra) continue unabated be1ow. 11. Quite honestly, John Hurt seems to be having the time of his life in his role, and it is always enjoyable to watch a great actor enjoying himself (watch Olivier as Richard III for proof). 12. Good mystery stories need long films, as they require considerable set-ups for each character before the fun starts; this doesn't have one, and the characters arrive both fully-formed and fully explained. 13. The denouement is something of a smash-up, but I think I understood it. Still, in an age that thinks that Rap is music, I'm not certain other people would; they should have dumbed it down a little.Okay, with all the above going for or against the film, I still found it totally enjoyable to watch. In fact, I'm going to watch it again this week. And then I'm going to watch it again and again and again, until I am sure I understand it. But a six rating, mostly for John Hurt and the photography.

The movie begins well and does keep you interested till just the end. At which point you realize that the story is totally flawed!!! There is just no way to justify the story or the murders and other happenings in the movie. The acting is OK.The filming is alright but what to do with a movie that lacks all logic!! Especially when the whole script revolves around lectures of logic and reasoning. The movie is sure to leave you disappointed,dissatisfied and somewhat disturbed if you think even a little while watching it. And anyone who disagrees should and must tell that HOW and WHY does Seldom randomly choose the fish as the 2nd symbol???Because he clearly doesn't know the third one in the sequence as evident by the blank paper and his admittance of the fact that he didn't know at that time.It's very very hard to believe that out of all the symbols in the world he chooses the fish to be the second symbol,all the while being ignorant of the existence of a sequence containing it.Plus,Seldom's ignorance of the series/sequence simply contradicts his stature as one of the math greats out there. The solutions to the murders in the movie that are offered to the viewer are simply unacceptable and unbelievable which is why this movie is a total waste of time. How could this be a book????

Philosophy, mathematics & logic, Oxford University, murder, intellectuals … all the components that one could hope for in a cerebral, cozy British murder mystery. I, like several others who have written reviews, had high hopes for what would be served up, but ended up disappointed.The genuinely famous "Fermat's Last Theorem" mysteriously became "Bormat's Last Theorem," which was somewhat indicative of much of the flimflam & fakery that enveloped the movie. The whole production was buried in pseudo intellectualism, name-dropping (numerous mathematicians, logicians & philosophers who would probably have preferred, like Fermat, that their names had been changed to protect their reputations) and contrived clues that depended on parsing a presumed mathematical/logical series. Beneath it all there was a plot that might have qualified for a mediocre episode of Midsomer Murders or Columbo, but would hardly engage the "little grey cells" of even Hercule Poirot. Martin (Elijah Wood) and Arthur Seldom (John Hurt) spend a good deal of their time shouting at one another (and various other people) in ersatz academic one-upmanship, apparently on the assumption that the louder you are, the more convincing your dubious thinking must be. More alarming, Martin felt compelled to dash from pillar to post every few minutes, frequently colliding with other people carrying books or papers that went flying in the air. Rather unconvincing romantic couplings and consequent jealousies seemed totally disconnected from the rest of the story. Towards the end we were even treated to a rather tepid car chase and fiery bus crash in a vain effort to heighten the drama.This is a case where less would have certainly been more. Too much was thrown in, in an attempt to elevate a trite and poorly concocted plot with a cloak of intellectualism and atmospherics. Too many unhinged and bipolar characters were floating about. It all seemed to be a hodgepodge of distractions aimed at concealing the absence of substance.It just never came together.

The plot: A disillusioned student and his cynical professor help the police 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 a pretentious mess, as it tried desperately to prove how witty the writers could be.Still, I was willing to accept that it was going to turn into a cheesy Seven clone. The cast is really impressive, and it at least pays lip service to some interesting ideas, even if they are a bit cursory or shallow at times. Then again, I doubt most people want to hear philosophy or mathematics lectures in the middle of their murder mystery. I'm not quite sure where the proper balance is, but I think Seven was much closer than The Oxford Murders.There are requisite red herrings, plot twists, and Sherlock Holmes style deductions. There are also romantic subplots, academic politics, and even something of a coming-of-age tale, about an idealistic young man who discovers, to his horror, that his idol is a colossal jerk. Although I identified more with the colossal jerk than the idealistic protagonist (the opposite of what you're supposed to do, I think), both characters are given time to shine and expound on their individual beliefs. Neither the romantic subplot nor the romantic interest herself are given as much attention, making them seem a bit like plot devices than fully-realized elements of the movie.This is an inoffensive movie that often feels like it could have been better. Near the end, I was getting a bit impatient, and I began trying to predict the movie's ending rather than concentrating on the movie itself. I wasn't entirely correct, but I was in the right ballpark. I'm sure that, if you care enough and pay close enough attention, you'll be able to do better than me. It doesn't take a logical genius to predict how a genre film will end once you've seen enough of them.