The perfect crime is not one that remains unsolved, but one that is wrongly solved.
This phrase sounds in the film repeatedly and is pronounced by one of the main characters - the teacher of logic Arthur Seldom (John Hurt), who, along with one of the university students who tried to get Seldom to his scientific supervisors - Martin (Elijah Wood), investigates a series of mysterious murders.
The film twists its plot around mathematical symbols and their meaning: symbols are on the scene of each crime, which pushes Seldom to the version of the serial nature of the crimes.
The unknown killer leaves no traces (other than symbols) of each murder, making it look like a natural death. Especially given the fact that each of the dead was terminally ill and the likelihood that the police would consider his death violent, in this case would be small.
Professor Seldom is sure that the killer challenges him to measure his intelligence, and in this context, Martin, who had a clash with Seldom at one of the lectures, also falls under suspicion. And in this case, the intrigue in the film is tied into a good knot, because everyone who somehow got into the frame and had at least a few replicas is under suspicion. As a rule, in films of this nature, the killer hides in plain sight and The Oxford Murders are no exception. It’s a bit different than in classic detectives with multiple deaths.
The “perfect crime” factor plays an important role in the film, and it is no coincidence that Professor Seldom utters this phrase several times. Such a hardened master of words knows exactly what he is talking about. As in the case of the seed of doubt, which is worth sowing in the soul of man, and it will not be the same, the factor of the Idea is fatal. If you put the Idea into a person’s head (as in the movie Inception), it will sharpen his thoughts day in and day out. In the case of this film, Idea is a branch of investigation that is avoided by the police with the easy filing of one of the characters.
And of course, this film perfectly illustrates one of the scientific formulations - "causal relationships". This will become clear in the very last scene and you will understand exactly what it is about, because one of the events will start a chain of fatal actions. Just one event that will affect a lot (if not all) that was shown in this picture.
Oxford Murders is a good intellectual detective with thriller elements. Fans of the genre will surely like this film. And in order to delve into some scientific dogmas and conclusions, you will need to watch the film more than once. You will not be disappointed.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
If not, pass by. That’s what the film does right up to the last minute, when I’m already relaxed, they say, everything is clear. And suddenly everything does not turn upside down, and worse - falls into place! Yes, yes, the solution of the detective mystery was obvious, and the director was not afraid to show the viewer along with the main character one moment that fully solves the first murder. Of course, you need, as in any detective, to look carefully and be able to think. But then so convincingly, powdered with mathematics, authorities and so on, the plot begins to take away from this decision that the viewer succumbs. And in the end, with a butt on his head, he says, trust your eyes more than boltology.
Student Martin (Elijah Wood) comes from America to England in the hope of writing a dissertation under the guidance of the famous Professor Seldom (old cunning John Hurt). But the professor, they tell Martin, won't even talk to him. Then Martin decides to draw the professor's attention to himself, coming to him for a lecture. What a surprise he was when he met this professor right in front of the house, where he had rented a room, and where, by a strange coincidence, the mistress’s still uncooled body lay. . .
I'm trying to understand why the average score for the film is so low.
The acting is wonderful. Intrigue, denouement, everything is on top. The detective is amazing!
However, for the sake of justice, I will mention two reasons. The first one is not quite fair for underestimating, in my opinion. They're all too smart. Mathematicians, philosophers. The investigation is based not on fingerprints and the amount of ash spilled of a certain variety, but on mathematical theories, so the viewer, spoiled by thrillers, will be bored.
But the second detail, I think, is fair. The first half of the film is sluggish and not engaging. I can't believe anything serious is happening. I'm going to drop 2 points because I'm still in a bit of culture shock. And it pays for everything.
Sometimes it is better to be silent than to speak.
Unexpected prologue (actually - epigraph) "Murders in Oxford" - a sketch from the fields of the first world war and a quote from Wittgenstein: "What is impossible to talk about, you should be silent."
However, in the film itself, as befits an intellectual detective, they say a lot.
Spanish director Alex de la Iglesia generally shoots a strange movie, balancing between genres. So here, the plot turns to us now a melodrama, then a physiological thriller, then a philosophical parable, then almost elusive and subtle, like English humor, comedy (or even a parody of an intellectual detective as a genre).
It is best to watch it with the credits to catch the game of modulations of “noble” English John Hart and “American” English Elijah Wood. Actually, the whole film is based on their dialogue, they skillfully play out all the oppositions that determine the development of the plot (youth - old age, practice - theory, feeling - reason). Well, and the beauty Leonor Watling, closing the triangle, gives the story a sensual sharpness.
Here compare "Murders in Oxford" with "Games of the mind" and "Da Vinci Code", although from the first there is only an academic environment as a place of action, and from the second there is a play of symbols, a purely external attribute.
In general, the film is not stupid and, in its own way, beautiful. Detective intrigue flawlessly holds until the last frame, the solution, as expected, will be sudden. There are still questions.
This film is something after which it is impossible to remain silent and be alone with your opinion. What motivates you to start an account on a movie search, and not just discuss the film with friends and family. This movie is so bad!
I can say with full responsibility that this is the worst film of this genre that I have seen throughout my life (taking into account expectation-reality). Surprisingly, everything is bad in it: meaningless dialogues and scenes, hence the inconclusive play of actors, inappropriate drawn-out bed scenes of passion, sudden close relationships of recently met people with a difference in age +40 years, the characters do not correlate with the line of their behavior, pseudo-intellectual images, attracted historical facts, general bue.
The indicator was that in episodes where drama is supposed, a smile was stretched on my face because of the falsity and absolute absurdity of what was happening.
The quality of the shooting, yes, something that you could cling to in the positive direction of the review, it is excellent, but answer:' Do you really want to see the call clearly in HD?'
1 out of 10
I came across 'Murders in Oxford' several times while looking for some good thriller, but I avoided it because I was confused by the word 'mathematics' in the description. Mathematics is a subject that has remained incomprehensible to me, everything that goes beyond the multiplication table seems to me a dark forest, and I doubted that I could understand what was happening. However, good thrillers are such a small number of animals, whose range is small and every year everything decreases, so gradually the hands reach what was postponed for later. . .
So, what can I say? After watching, there were incomprehensible sensations - as if the film was supposed to be good, as if everything was done for this, but there was a sense of disappointment, they say, something is wrong. Let me explain in detail what was wrong:
1) The English detective thriller I, and not only, associated with the slow development of events, because the film-Englishman must know its value and step step step step step by step and even a little prim. But in this case, I noted a certain chaotic narration, the wrong pace killed the whole feeling, and the atmosphere did not come out, although the color scheme was selected flawlessly.
(2) Mathematics. Yes, the characters talk a lot, explain something, but it is quite difficult for a person of a humanitarian mind to follow the mathematical course of thought. All efforts go to perceive and interpret information correctly, and its assimilation is no longer left.
(3) Yuri Podorov. I have no questions for Bern Gorman, the performance of the eccentric Russian scientist is excellent, but I have doubts about the need for this character in general.
(4) Martin and Lorna line. I found it very strange to finish.
(5) Explanation. When I found out what was going on, I felt like I was being cheated. Like I wanted a doll, but I got a book. Events from the very beginning were tied into such a knot that I expected something grand in the end, a great criminal mind or something. I got a set of pure accidents! Put one away and everything falls apart. There is no brilliant scheme, there is just a person who was lucky, who managed to adjust the circumstances for himself. That's not what I expected, that's for sure. . .
Elijah Wood. He's a good actor, he's trying. But his facial expressions are limited by his appearance, and it doesn't fit very well in this film. Yes, the duet with John Hurt looks impressive, but John Hurt looks much more convincing than his partner - a duet with a disturbed balance.
At the exit - a rather weak pseudo-British detective with an uncertain history, for one time can fit.
4 out of 10
“Every puzzle is simple when you know the answer.”
The Oxford Muders movie has its own atmosphere. He's so English in that regard. Those are the words that come to mind. These views, Oxford himself, look at the screen and it seems that you are even breathing different air. It was a pleasure.
This includes the “temperature” of the film. Perhaps it may seem gray, boring monotonous, but no, it has its own peculiarity. This serenity and tranquility, despite a rather difficult plot, the British are able to keep the intrigue not with jumps of the emotional plan, but directly with new plot twists and new hints for independent reasoning.
Special attention to dialogues, rather long dialogues, full of reasoning and search for answers. I enjoyed listening, watching the chain of thoughts, the development of theories and assumptions. In this film, it was appropriate, although in some cases it can bother me.
When I was grading, I dropped one point for acting. She's pretty much nothing here. I haven't seen anything with Elijah Wood except the Hobbit, he hasn't impressed me again. As for John Hurt, he was able to play a grumpy old man, there are no strong claims. And yet I will say that in this film I did not feel the lack of acting. She wasn't needed. Important was the plot, details, dialogue and nothing more. I liked that both girls (Julie Cock and Leonor Watling) in the film were quite unusual, starting with their appearance. It's nice to have done without stupid template pretty faces.
Now the story. There's almost no complaints. So nothing comes to mind at once, since everything looks quite pleasant against the general background. While watching, it is so great to confuse thoughts, as soon as you begin to suspect one, you are thrown something that refutes your guesses.
Throughout the film, we are led to uncover a logical sequence that explains the entire chain of crimes, and then we get a series of events spontaneously triggered by a few phrases. Another message to people to think about what they say, advise and generally convey to other people.
“Every puzzle is simple when you know the answer.”
The Fibonacci sequence, the divine cross-section, the successive murders, having a certain logical order and, of course, the Oxford professor. Does that ring a bell? To me, it smells like the Brown stories of Harvard professor Robert Langdon. But instead of a pretty, smart girl, an American student. But this does not matter at all, because the director managed to create an unusually exciting and hypnotic English atmosphere, which separates this picture from many other detectives and hides the clumsy work of the writers.
So what's the movie about? Martin is an American student who arrives at Oxford University with a dream of writing a paper under the wing of the outstanding logician and mathematician, professor Arthur Seldom. But then they kill a good old lady, where Martin settled and the most interesting thing begins. Further, without the issuance of secret, spoiler, information, you can hardly add anything else about the plot. By the way, when watching, she noted that in many films the main character, attending a particular lecture, listens to the lengthy reflections of the lecturer on the topic that concerns him, the hero, which, in fact, is devoted to the whole film. Oh, isn't it an insidious coincidence?
The whole film is based on two actors – Elijah Wood and John Hurt. John Hurt here is chic, including the image of a gray-haired and attractive professor at an age, the acting itself. In general, the hero is well worked out, is the main and attracting attention. Wood's hero is neither fish nor meat. Whether he is crazy, stupid or clever, handsome or not, what role does he play in the development of the plot? No, actually big, but little understood. He is a stranger, a new one, because here and before him, the characters turned novels, hated each other and interacted in every possible way. The image does not even lend itself to the classical division into protagonists and antagonists. It's not Wood's role at all, either.
The main disadvantage of the film, for me, at least — Yuri Ivanovich Podorov. What is this? Crazy Russian mathematician, walks typically bearish gait, whips vodka, walks around tables, carries a complete mess. And the nightstand? Of course, a photo of Yura in his favorite Ushanka.
Musical support at the highest level. A lot of themes from the film took a place in my player, because really memorable motifs. The pluses, though I doubted, include the horrifying story of Arthur Seldom's friend, who suffers from bone festering and schizophrenia. The scene, the description of his insanity, influenced me more than any horror movies and stories about the coffin on wheels.
The film is very amateurish, so if you are attracted to everything English, detectives, confusing plot and original but strange endings, then watch and enjoy.
Truth is the touchstone of itself and of lies. (Spinosa)
This film is certainly admirable and very informative material for many, as it answers such topical questions as: Is there truth? Is there consistency in our lives or is everything chaotic? Films with scientific themes, first of all, make people think, in fact, this is the value of these films. The events in this film are amazing. At its very beginning, Seldom engages in a film-long discussion of the question of truth. More precisely, he is sure of its absence, but then a young opponent appears, convinced that everything has absolutely meaning, and everything in the world has a predetermined structure. This argument is fundamental in the film. Saldom cleverly managed to use it. Using Martin's beliefs, he makes him a pawn in his logic game. Very extravagantly, such a phenomenon as the butterfly effect is involved here. The most important thing about this film is that at first glance, when watched diligently, it can seem confusing, and many simply can successfully finish watching, but the patient will get absolutely all the answers to the questions at the very end and will be stunned! This is an amazing movie that everyone should see!
A normal film in the genre of an intellectual thriller with an assessment of chaste murders and obvious cockiness: a lot of pseudo-mathematical and pseudo-intellectual chatter using common places of popularization. This nonsense should provide a high ideological background, create an atmosphere of immorality of participants and their giftedness. The solution and combination of murders is certainly not trivial, non-shooting guns in the form of distracting potential villains are present (especially I like Yuri Ivanovich Toropov). It's not a movie.
I had great respect for the professionalism of the director, who performed on foreign territory, with restrained material, to which the Spaniards seem not adapted. Iglesias’ fictions in the form of frame insertion from the famous English process, his debut with Wittgenstein, absolutely amazing minutes for three on 20 minutes of time travel with the transition of the camera between four multidirectionally moving characters – all this is very glorious. Frodo was imposed, I believe, by the producers, and so a gifted youngster could have been played on the market. Who does not have a problem with the texture is the aged John Hurt, who, due to the similarity, could be replaced without difference by Ian McKellen, who was not taken, obviously, because of the filling of the actor’s quota of Lord of the Rings by the mentioned Wood. The film is directorial, shot without the usual expression of de la Iglesias, and certainly not the most characteristic and best for him.
6 out of 10
I loved the beginning of the movie, it seemed very promising. In addition, I have a certain weakness for such scientific and logical pictures. Unfortunately, the implementation of such ideas is usually very lame.
The film as a whole evokes a sense of hurried, incoherent speech. As if the director wanted to say a lot and extremely important, so new characters appear out of nowhere in the picture, whose inappropriate and strange behavior consistently suggests that too many frames were cut during the editing. Incomprehensible hypertrophied emotions are on the level between people who have known each other for only 10 minutes. Ceiling facts, absolutely unrealistic “logical” explanations. The film reminded me of a coursework not too diligent student: he tried only on the introduction and conclusion, hoping that the main part will not be read at all.
I liked the ending, but only for my purpose. By the way, the plus of Murders is undoubtedly the cast. It was the first time I saw John Hurt, but he was on a level. At the sight of Elijah Wood with delight is not food, but here I thought that he is a very good actor. Right up to that final scene. In the last few seconds he looked very, very unconvincing. And that made me feel a little bit better.
It will be fair to note the atmosphericity of the picture: the classic English exterior, the ancient university, the impressive bookstore are a very natural background for the unfolding events.
To be honest, I regret the time spent watching. I wanted to spit and turn it off in the middle, but that's not my rule. Well, I will continue to hope to see a really high-quality film of a logical and mathematical nature.
Just for the idea
The viewing of the film was very mediocre, albeit pleasant, but the final scenes raised my impression of it as on wings.
It's not a detective, though. What's there to investigate? The director did not hide anything from those who, instead of looking at the drops on the window, looked behind the glass. Rather, it is a modern story in the English style about the intricacies of logic, ethics and chance. Heroes are completely subordinate to one or the other. Their equations lack variables until they put everything together. In the end, they are both right and wrong, and guilty and innocent.
Unconditional 'plus'. An alarming wait, the tension of Elijah Voodoo to the face, how few people. Their duet with Hert is good, beautiful, their style of relationship perfectly fits into the plot and atmosphere.
'Minuses'1) Some erotic scenes caused bewilderment, the director does not lead us so deeply along the romantic line to suddenly reveal such details. Spaghetti confused me, not so I was imbued with the feelings that suddenly arose between the characters to appreciate the beauty of such a manifestation of intimacy. 2) Logical reasoning at the beginning of the film, in my opinion, sucked out of the finger, because this is a lecture by the author of the landmark book!
What to expect? Unhurried English intrigue, superficial but ornate investigation, many different plans, walks through the streets of Oxford, local romance, reflections ... Make yourself a cup of tea, have a nice look.
I love detectives and especially English chambers.
Student Martin (Elijah Wood) at Oxford. His main wish is for the famous Professor Seldom (John Hurt) to become the scientific supervisor of his dissertation. But he has not only been working as a researcher for a long time, but at another public lecture besieged Martin in his admiration for mathematics. Martin is extremely disappointed, his dream is to work with his idol on the verge of collapse. And then there is a murder - Mrs. Eagleton - an old friend of Seldom, from whom Martin rents a room.
In general, the good old purely English murder. But there's an interesting detail. The author not in vain introduced the American Martin into the narrative. In fact, with his filing, it suddenly turns out that this is not an accidental murder, and a serial killer appeared in the city, giving clues to the police. And this is clearly an American school of detective thriller in the spirit of all sorts there 'Seven' and 'Saw'. Although I repeat, the film is not in any way a thriller, but an ordinary detective. Perhaps not outstanding, but moderately interesting.
I can’t say anything bad or good about the actors. However, John Hurt once again noted for himself (Chancellor Sutler of ' V' means Vendetta') and unexpectedly liked Elijah Wood in this role.
The film did not do without any talk about mathematics, logic, numbers and the like. I suspect that students of mathematics will perceive them as nonsense, because Martin’s enthusiastic monologue about the number of pi and the golden ratio, just as a lecture on logic and the Truth of Seldom, well, did not make the proper impression even on me.
I can only recommend the film to detectives. Once they will watch this film not without pleasure.
“Every puzzle is simple when you know the answer.”
The film opens with student Martin arriving at Oxford University. Oxford itself was not enough. He's just a background to action. The thing is, it's a detective. So there's no time to study. With Martin’s arrival, mysterious murders begin to occur. And he and one of the teachers are investigating the case.
The film left conflicting impressions. It seems to be here and Elijah Wood . His Martin is identical to Jones from the movie "Seventeen-year-olds." John Hurt played Professor Arthur Seldom. The main events are happening around them. The film lacks action. Sometimes the atmosphere is lost. And for a detective, these are pretty important attributes.
I don’t want to talk about the shortcomings of this film. The Oxford Murders is a movie worth watching. This film is not for those who do not want to think or who do not get along with mathematics and logic. The creators prepared a lot of philosophical questions for the audience. But they were not properly able to reveal them.
One way or another, the heroes try to solve crimes by combining logic and forensics. And that's pretty entertaining. But within an hour it starts to get boring. The ending saves the situation. Watch the movie to the end to see the ending. It is truly amazing and at the same time terrifying.
As a result, we have a non-standard detective story, albeit not from the ranks of the great cinema, but, nevertheless, the movie cannot be called unsuccessful. Take a look and plunge into this distant England and the famous Oxford. And wonderful compositions and famous actors to help you. And to me, it's better to revisit Murders in Oxford than the recent film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
7 out of 10