The Oxford Murders (2008)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

ridiculous rating

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

I decided to watch this with the great John hurt and the likeable elijah wood .It really is very dull and am so wanting to turn it off .But am intrigued as to who done it , trying g to stay awake for the next 46 minutes .

The Oxford Murders is a quasi-sophisticated murder mystery attempting to combine philosophical mathematics with a series of murders. The movie has the feel of an attempt to emulate the Da Vinci Code without the action and excitement. The writer of the script clearly misused chaos theory in professor Seldom's lecture. Being able to predict hurricanes has nothing to do with the limitations of mathematics as the script would have us believe, but is rather a failure of our inability to gather enough data points to the precise measurement that is required to make those calculations. Anyway, This is a murder mystery who-dun-it. As such it is best just to list the characters then to speak profusely about the plot:Martin (Elijah Wood) is an American at Oxford wanting to be sponsored by the famous Arthur Seldom. He is a border at Ms. Eagleton.Arthur Seldom, retired professor, author of philosophical mathematics. WWII decoder.Mrs. Eagleton- Wife of a colleague of Seldom's. She is in a wheel chair, terminal, and the first victim. Her husband and Mrs. Seldom died in an auto accident some time ago. Seldom apparently rejected Mrs. Eagleton as a would be lover/ second wife as he prefers younger women, although they remained close friends.Beth, Ms. Eagleton's daughter and caretaker. She inherits her mother's wealth. She is in love with Martin, throws herself at him, and he rejects her. She plays a cello and is clearly unbalanced, imagining a relationship with Martin that does not exist.The guy who studies with Martin- He is also a bit crazy. He hates Seldom and claims his ideas have been stolen. For some reason his lips clearly don't match what he is saying most of the time.Nurse- She works in a hospital that Arthur Seldom goes to frequently to visit old sick colleagues. She throws herself at Martin and they become lovers. Later we find out she was once Arthur Seldom's lover. She is familiar with his work and writes murder mysteries.Crazy guy- He believes Jesus came back to revenge his death. He is clearly unbalanced. His daughter is dying in the hospital in need of a lung transplant, but there are no matching donors. He hangs out in the same hospital as the nurse and Seldom and buys books on Pythagorean society.All the characters are interconnected and it would easy to assign a motive to each one. There are very minor clues or hints as to what is happening, although nothing that would completely tip who the murderer is...or does it? I will give you a clue that may help you try to figure out what is happening, one scene fuels the next one although it may not seem to. It is a butterfly effect, which is what the "genius" of this film is about or maybe it is about mathematicians should never write murder mysteries.Nudity, sexual scenes, and language.

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????

Most murder mysteries can be thought of as animated algebra, in that the objective is to solve an equation, the solution to which is contained in a string of variables. The puzzle of who killed person "Y" can be solved, given the facts, identifiable as weapon used, time of death, forensic evidence, character motive, alibi, and so on. Logical deduction brings forth the solution. There can be only one correct answer."The Oxford Murders" follows this classic story construct, except that it interjects heavy-duty mathematical theory into the equation, not just simple logic. The script's dialogue references the "Fibonacci series", "quaternary", "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", and other math terms. These concepts are not just some script device used to impress. They bear directly on the film's whodunit mystery, which involves the idea of symmetry. The author of the book on which the script is based has a Ph.D. in mathematics.But, as a result, the film can be intimidating, owing to the dialogue. Further, if the viewer does not pay attention, the underlying message gets lost, or seems opaque, frustratingly out of reach. Such is the complexity of mathematics ... and reality.Aside from the mathematical theory, the film contains plenty of visual treats. Sound effects add suspense, particularly the echoes. Sets and costumes are professionally handled. Editing is effective. Casting and acting are acceptable except for Elijah Wood, whose acting range is rather limited and who looks too young to be a doctoral student. I especially liked John Hurt in the role of the professor.Mostly I admire the film's underlying premise, that we can apply abstract, difficult to grasp mathematical concepts to everyday reality. For the thinking person at least, that is something marvelous to ponder.