Martin (Wood), a young Ph.D. Philosophy student arrives in Cambridge with a scholarship trying to get Professor Seldom's (Hurt) attention and direction for his thesis. A series of symbol-connected murders turn them into investigation buddies and friends.
The story discusses a series of philosophical and ethical questions: 1/ the meaning of life 2/ the role of philosophy and mathematics in daily life 3/ the concept of human imperfection 4/ the adaptability of our minds and philosophical approach to different moments in life. Do our Philosophic principles, personal or not, stand the irrationality of life? 4/ the concept of moral responsibility. The whodunit is just a way to explore the philosophical points the movie wants to make. Seldom and Martin represent, at the beginning of the film, two different and even opposed ways of approaching and understanding the world and life. However, you will notice in Seldom and Martin's last conversation in the movie that both of them have shifted to the principle the other supported at the beginning. Circumstances matter to sustain or shift your philosophical principles and view of the world (Gasset, not Wittgenstein). We humans are not mathematical axioms, nor is life.
The first problem I found with the film is that, if you want to explore some philosophical points, you better chose a story that is suited for that exploration in film. Even more, if you decide that a murder story is what you want, you have to build an excellent mystery thriller to go well with it. Unfortunately, this is not the case here. The thriller has not much thrill, although the mystery is intriguing. The tempo, atmosphere and music of the movie are not good for a thriller, and without those key elements, the rest crumbles; in fact, the music was distracting and unfocused. On the other hand, I thought that the movie did not have any English flavour despite being filmed in England and with (mostly) English actors. I don't mean to say that you cannot shoot in a country or city that is not yours without the movie resenting, but that you have to be familiar with it to be able to get its vibe, its essence and portray it in a movie. The art department is perhaps the one to blame here. Some of the mathematical and philosophical goofs are remarkable, too, like number phi instead of pi (no Ph.D. student in Philosophy would make that sort of mistake), or Bormat's theorem instead of Fermat's, among the most evident.
I found the cast badly matched, and the acting bad or mediocre. I had the impression that the cast was a bit whimsical, something that Alex fancied or could get, not what the characters needed. John Hurt, Elijah Wood, and Jim Carter (as Inspector Petersen) are correct in their performances. Leonor Watling is just OK in her unsubstantial role as nurse Lorna, mostly there to give some romance and sex to the main character. Dominique Pinon plays, once more, in his usual role of sweet freak. July Cox's performance is dreadful as Beth; she seemed lost in a theatrical monologue, unnecessarily exaggerated in her performance. Also theatrical, over the top, and even ridiculous, are the performances of Anna Massey as nasty Mrs. Eagleton and Burn Gorman as Yuri Podorov. I think that they all suffer from a poor actors direction because Alex De La Iglesia has a poor English and is not able to work at a deep level with native speakers.
I am a fan of De La Iglesia, and this movie feels like it is not his. The script's premises are fascinating, but the outcome is totally forgettable mostly because of De La Iglesia's laziness at directing and focusing. What I will remember of the movie are the philosophical premises and approach, and the flashback story of the 19th century, which is very much De La Iglesia's.
Disappointing.
