Save your money for something good and enjoyable

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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 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.

The idea of two mathematicians getting ahead of a serial killer by using their knowledge of math is a good one. Unfortunately, the math was yadda-yadda stuff and every thing else was a melange of clichés. experimental stuff, and incompetence. There is a surprise ending, but it is anticlimax, not climax. By then, you couldn't care less, since everything but the kitchen sink is thrown in as the movie careens around like a pinball in a pinball machine.It begins with a gratuitous scene about Ludwig Witgenstein. Ludwig Witgenstein was indeed a fearless fighter in World War I who did keep a notebook. But the idea that he would sit down unprotected under fire to write a thought in his notebook is absurd. Another gratuitous scene: The filming of a love scene matching a super attractive woman three quanta of sexy above the male lead doesn't work. Then he pours spaghetti-with sauce-on her is,....well, yuckie. Maybe it plays to some pasta perverts.Absolutely insane red herrings, more tangents, no tension as no thread is followed without endless distractions.....too bad. Could have been a winner.

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.