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????

We decided to watch this movie and were dismayed to find that, from the very beginning, it was painfully bad. Despite enlisting a cast of capable actors such as John Hurt, Anna Massey, and Jim Carter, to name but a few, no one could rescue this film from its own terrible dialog, laughable contrivances, and ridiculous coincidences. We decided to watch the whole thing just to find out who done it. I wish I could say a clever end had justified the lost hour and 48 minutes of my life. Alas. And, we only have ourselves to blame. We kept shaking out heads and saying, "...but the actors are better than this!" Needless to say, I do not recommend this movie.

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.