Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

mimosveta The movie is completely pointless, but to make things worse, it's really trying to be smart. everything is made to seem as if they are coming up with these conclusions, figuring out the clues, being very intellectual, but instead all they do is pull random facts out of their behinds, with dramatic music in background. still the worst thing of all, is that during the course of the movie, you develop these theories on who done it, and how and why. you develop theories, and then nothing happens in the end, entire storyline fizzles out in yet another attempt to be clever. really disappointing.

Guy Lanoue I really wanted to like this film, thinking it was an old-fashioned, slow placed and thoughtful alternative to the usual special effects cesspool: using brains, mathematics and philosophy to track down a murderer. American graduate student in Oxford (Wood) has sex right off the boat with a beautiful nurse (Watling) and gets to lodge in a wonderfully eccentric and charming old house with a wonderfully eccentric and charming old woman (Anna Massey), meets eccentric and not so charming fellow student, and gets to meet eccentric and burnt out but still bitingly witty and narcissistic genius (Hurt), who is also the ex-lover of the beautiful nurse with the never-explained accent. We get it. Despite being allegedly built around a weird subset of logical-positivistic philosophy (badly and erroneously summed up by Hurt's public lecture at the beginning), in fact the movie is built around clichés. I don't understand how an allegedly mathematician turned writer could have written such a bad script. I mean, you wouldn't expect a mathematician to describe a sexy love scene, and in fact the lack of chemistry between Wood and Watling is amazing and really, really lust-killing, but to get basic knowledge of the world of mathematical logic wrong is really unsettling. Worse, math is dumbed down. The only thing this script could possibly have going for it is its use of math as a narrative device, yet we see Wood marking up a squash court to calculate better angles of attack. This is supposed to sell us on math? Why is Wittgenstein's Tractatus described as a series of mathematical equations? It's not. Why is Fermat's Last theorem anonymised by presenting it as Bormat's Last Theorem? Was the legal office on the production team somehow afraid that Fermat's descendants would put in a claim for royalties 400 years later if they actually used his name? Why is the real mathematician who finally solved the puzzle in the 1990s, Andrew Wiles, presented as looking like a summer-stock theatre director named Wilkes? Wiles' proof is over a hundred pages long, not something that can be scribbled on a board during a public lecture, though Wiles did give a talk in 1993 at Cambridge, not Oxford, announcing his proof, the same year in which the film is set. Are we supposed to get a secret thrill figuring out the roman-a-clef hints that it's really Fermat, as if that wasn't obvious to 100% of the math and science nerds and MENSA members who would watch a film like this? This is just dumb scripting: seductresses (Watling) have to be incredibly sultry, professors have to have Einstein hair and elbow patches, young and hungry students have to be iconoclasts, and so on. In the end, it's not about the bad math and bad scripting but the bad casting. Wood is not really believable as a would-be Beautiful Mind math genius, Hurt is a prissily theatrical stereotype of the Mad Professor, and Watling is way too sophisticated and sexy to be a believable nurse who melts into a mass of walking pheromones when she catches a glimpse of future Hobbit Wood. The backstories are either simple-minded (Hurt, Massey) or simply banal (Wood, Watling). In the end, the so-called math that is supposed to be the key to unlocking the murder mystery is way less engaging than the word games in The Da Vinci Code. In the end, we have a movie about math and serial killers in which there (SPOILER) no serial killers and no real math.

blanche-2 "The Oxford Murders" from 2008, I will admit gave me a headache. All I have to do is hear the word "math" and I'm out the door. This is a murder mystery dependent upon some mathematical concepts in order to solve the various murders.The film takes place at Oxford University, where an ambitious young student, majoring in mathematics and number theory, Martin, played by Elijah Wood, comes to the school anxious to work with a Professor Seldom (John Hurt).The two end up endeavoring to solve a series of murders that revolve around mathematical symbols. The first murder has to do with the fibonacci series, which apparently is something learned by school children in England. I'm American and from a different generation, so much of this was lost on me.You will obviously love this film much more if you can follow the mathematics; without the math, there is a normal mystery along with several twists. There is also the wonderful John Hurt.Worth checking out particularly if you have interest in the various theories.

edwagreen Dreadful film pairing Elijah Wood and John Hurt as graduate student and professor, respectively caught up in a series of murders.How one would want to relate mathematical symbols in trying to solve the killings is beyond me.By the film's end, everyone is blaming everyone else for the series of murders that have occurred. The last series, a tragedy where 10 children are killed so that another who is hospitalized may leave was bizarre and most tragic. The film also tries to bring out that sometimes it is the most obvious that is true. What is obvious here is that we are subjected to some very boring lectures linking mathematics and philosophy.