The Oxford Murders


Action / Crime / Mystery / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 10%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 33%
IMDb Rating 6.1 10 24748


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 27,959 times
May 07, 2016 at 08:31 PM


Burn Gorman as Yuri Podorov
Elijah Wood as Martin
John Hurt as Arthur Seldom
Jim Carter as Inspector Petersen
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
783.75 MB
24 fps
1hr 44 min
P/S 1 / 13
1.64 GB
24 fps
1hr 44 min
P/S 0 / 20

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by joe-pearce-1 6 / 10

Let's Talk About Mixed-Up Mysteries

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.

Reviewed by matxil 2 / 10

complete failure

Rarely a film fails on so many levels. The film tries to say "deep things" but clearly neither the writer nor the director have a clue what they are talking about, so all the "profound" stuff is merely ridiculous (low point: Wittgenstein during WWI writing in his notebook, and that's only the introduction to the film). As a Monty Python sketch that might have been funny, but since the film is pretending to say something serious, it's just embarrassing. The acting is abysmal, the plot is silly and full of holes, for some incomprehensible reason there are two girls who suddenly fall in love with the main character, but there's no way to understand why (or how, since there's zero chemistry). For me, the worst part were the dialogues, though. At the beginning, the American student who just finds a boarding room with some woman who used to know a number of famous mathematicians, picks up a photo and then explains who the people on the photo are, why they are famous, and a short Wikipedia biography of their lives. Subtle. "Well," says the woman, "you did your homework". If only the scriptwriters, the director and the actors would have done the same.

Reviewed by saima-85097 2 / 10

Disappointing and underwhelming!

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????

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment