Directed by Alex De La Iglesia, and based on the eponymous book by Guillermo Martinez, The Oxford Murders is an unconventional but failed thriller.
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.
Shop 17-18, Forrest Chase Mall
200 Murray St
Perth Western Australia 6000
(08) 9225 7022
http://www.edoshiki.com.au/
Hours:
Mon-Thu, Sat-Sun 10:30 - 16:30
Fri 10:30 - 18:30Photo courtesy of
Edo Shiki is one of my favourite stops for fresh sushi in the city centre. Conveniently located by Myers at Forrest place, this is a sure escape for people wanting fresh good Japanese food. They open at 10.30am every day, and although technically this is not a brunch place, this is certainly a "brunsashumuzi". Their train mixes dishes with several pieces of Sushi (from the basic to the very elaborate), Sashimi (basic), fried food, sweet buns, and, everybody's favourite (mine too) - the hot bamboo baskets with some delicious Japanese specialities. Beyond the train, you have Bento trays, an a-la-carte menu for individual dishes, and a good range of western and Japanese drinks.
Their prices are average for places like this, so it is up to you if you want a cheap Bento tray, an affordable individual dish, or four expensive train plates, the latter being my case most of the time. I cannot help myself. They have a happy hour from Monday to Thursday, starting at around 4pm, affecting their takeaway area and you can/might get a 2 x 1, which is great if you are lucky enough to get one of their deluxe Sushi trays.
The staff are a bunch of young smiley and welcoming guys, but service can be slow at peak hours despite them running all over.
Edo Shiki has three three main downs. 1/ Their cold fried dishes. What is the point and the pleasure of serving cold tasteless fried food? 2/ The spacing between seats at the long decked table, especially at peak times, as you could be rubbing shoulders -literally- with somebody you don't want to. 3/ They don't have a public toilet, so, if you are in need, squeeze in your bladder, and run to Myers.
They have a Facebook account, so push their button and make them happy:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Edo-Shiki/118108074913365
Shop 6, 265 Walcott St
North Perth Western Australia 6006
(08) 9444 8699
http://www.farmerspaddock.com.au/
Hours:
Mon-Fri 10:00 - 19:00
Sat 7:00 - 18:00
Sun 9:00 - 17:00
Farmer Paddock's is a little traditional butcher that has anything for you to like it and buy from:
- They sell good-quality meats. They have a nice range
of simple and marinated meats and sausages. I especially like their
spiced burger patties and schnitzels, but the meat really looks fresh an
it doesn't shrink or waters while cooking as Coles or Woolies meats do.
- Their prices are affordable.
- Their meat goes directly from the Western Australian producers to the shop, no middlemen involved, so you know that the money goes to those who earn it with the sweat of their forehand, and that your meat hasn't been manipulated or contaminated by people who only want to make money out of it. Isn't that cool?
- Not enough for you? Well, another reason to like them - they open every day of the week. Every day!
I miss a little bit of more variety and plain meats, but everything they have is good quality and fresh, and very tasty.
Shop 1/669 Beaufort St
Mt Lawley Western Australia 6050
(08) 9271 0067
http://www.hemispherehair.com.au/
Hours:
Mon-Wed, Fri 9:00 - 17:30
Thu 9:00 - 21:00
Sat 8:00 - 16:00
This has been my hairdresser for many years. It is a nice salon, very popular with both women and men, with a very friendly owner, desk girl and a creative bunch of hairdressers. They use L'Oreal products
I've never had my hair cut here, but I've had my hair coloured hundreds of times here with great results. In fact, I have always got compliments on my hair colour. The people at Hemisphere know their gild and do a great job at getting your hair looking beautiful and natural no matter the colour you choose. Some of their stylists have got national awards representing the salon, so they are very good.
I have heard people saying that Hemisphere is very expensive. That is true for haircuts, especially if you just want a trimming or simple layers. However, average salons in Perth, with poorer service and quality, demand the same fees for colouring. However, Hemisphere has a reward points system, so every time you pay, points are accrued to you, which then can be exchanged for a discount when it suits you (You can save them for months or use them next time).
The main down of the site is the same you find in most hair-salons, that stupid nonsense of a talk, that they keep asking you the same questions over and over for years without even listening. That you reply to their questions and they have already stopped listening when you started to say Ahhh. Having said that, it is up to the individual stylist, and some are more genuine than others.
Another problem is that sometimes you book with a specific stylist, directly, with his/her diary and mine at hand, and next time you go he/she is attending to another person while you are given somebody less experienced, and they make mistakes but you are still fully charged. Also they don't give you a receipt unless you ask for it. Both things are a big No no no for me. No no no!
I don't go that often now, as I don't like being taken for granted, but, to be honest, they offer a good service, use good quality products and you get your colour properly done.
They have a website from where you can book your next visit online.
Shop 30B, 650 Murray St
West Perth Western Australia 6005
(08) 9218 9332
http://www.justcuts.com.au/
Hours:
Mon-Thu 9:00 - 17:30
Fri 9:00 - 21:00
Sat 9:00 - 17:00
Sun 12:00 - 17:00
Just Cuts is a no-fuss hair salon that does just one thing. Guess what? Just cuts. Yes, snobby people out there, don't frown at met thinking that I am a 70yo. housewife with a big bottom that has no style whatsoever, while you funky among the mainstream funky cannot put your feet at JC.
Just Cuts is a no-nonsense no-fuss hair-salon with experienced hairdressers that give you a good haircut for a trifle of a price: below 30 dollars if you have shampooed you hair in the last 24 hours and 40 bucks if you need shampoo and dry off with your cut. This explains why the place if full of men, but also full of pensioners and, well, ME! Why me, gorgeous creature on Planet Earth? Well, it is cheap, the hairdressers are good (experienced, skilled, matter of fact with their scissors, even some foreign cool dudes and girls), and I get what I want for a third of what I would pay elsewhere. I go to an unpretentious unglamorous cheap place and leave the place as the glamazone I am. Should I be ashamed?
You can drop by and have your hair cut on the spot, or, if the place is very busy, as usually happens on Saturdays, you can return in half an hour. No booking needed.
My advice to get great results at Just Cuts:
- You need to know what exactly you want, and suits you.
- You need to tell them exactly how much you want cut, how do you want your hair styled. Don't be shy. Otherwise they could be lazy or focus on the conversation.
- If you are happy with one of the hairdressers ask for him/her, although, beware, they change a lot.
- Don't go at peak hours, but at an odd ones, when there won't be many customers around and the hairdressers are more relaxed and can spend more time with you and your hair!
To be honest, if you don't know what you want, or want something super-Oscars go elsewhere. One thing if for sure. If you have a disaster result at least you haven't paid the fortune you pay at other salons where you, indeed, get disaster cuts.To be honest, I always gets asked where I cut my hair, and people are surprised that JC is the place.
There is nothing worse that a simple fun oriented film and story that pretends to be an intellectual artistic exercise. I find this sort of pretence not only annoying and deceiving to the spectator, but also artistically contrapuntal as you cannot seat and just watch the movie for what it is. If you want to show off your feathers, better be real! Guy Ritchie, the actors and producers have insisted that this movie not only captures the essence of the original, but also reinvent the, but both statements are delusional. In fact, I thought that the TV series "Sherlock" offers more artistry, inventiveness, interestingness and mystery that Richie's, it is true to the original but still adds elements of modernity that can be enjoyed by modern audiences.
I have read the books, which I immensely enjoyed, and I did not find Sherlock in this movie, or at least the SH I had imagined when reading the books. Robert Downey Jr. destroys the credibility and essence of the original character and turns it into an eccentric clown; he is funny, actually, but is not SH to me. Without a good Sherlock Holmes, the rest is not worth a penny. The rest of the acting is OK: Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong. and Kelly Reilly are Dr. John Watson, Irene Adler, Lord Blackwood, and Mary respectively. Robert Maillet was fun as giant Dreader. Eddie Marsan was unconvincing as Inspector Lestrade, though.
The story is entertaining, as all SH's stories are, has some moments of fun and is visually stunning, full of action and special effects. I liked the visual style of connecting slow/fast motion elements (typical of Ritchie) with SH's deductive way of thinking, which makes clear for the viewer why SH immediately gets what is happening and what is going to happen. The digital recreation of London and the mood of the era are certainly impressive; I especially liked the slum-dog sort of areas and shops, not as much the general views of the city that looked a bit oneiric and cartoon-ish (video-game-ish actually) at times. This is an action-packed movie that relegates to a second place the logical deduction, pace and essence of the original books.
Utterly pretentious, mildly entertaining, easily forgettable.
Steven Arthur Younger, an American ex-military man converted to Islam, has built three atomic bombs, and placed them in three cities to explode in 4 days. He has sent his family overseas, sent a video-message to the Government and allowed himself to be captured. He is taken to a secret military compound where he'll be tortured and interrogated to learn where the bombs are.
This movie reflects on the validity of torture against the so-called War on Terror, by indirectly asking these questions:
1/ Is torture ever justified?
2/ Does physical torture produce any piece of information that serves to safe lives?
3/ If you could save the world or a hundred of civilians from a bomb by torturing somebody, would that torture be justified?
4/ If not, why it is allowed?
5/ If yes, is there any limit or point, even unthinkable, that cannot be trespassed?
The main assumption taken by the story is that we live in a double-standards hypocritical world that preaches one thing but does another, that wants the dirt to be removed by using the hands of the others, so those ordering the dirty job have not responsibility on it. The movie brought to my mind many of the questions posed by a recent documentary "The Secret War on Terror" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1866818/).
Australian Director Gregor Jordan, British Actor-Scriptwriter Peter Woodward and Israeli writer Oren Movermam have guts to reflect on the subjects this movie approaches, even more because the movie (a sort of complement to the TV series 24) is filmed and produced in the USA. However, being so, you also expect it to be politically correct, and at a certain point it is.
The good thing of the movie is that uses the different characters as pawns to make its point. Therefore, they are not linear or monochrome - nobody is innocent here, morally, but some of the characters are franker and have more integrity than the others. However, the line that separates them is very thin, and is trespassed back and forward by the two main characters: H., the interrogator, and FBT agent Brody, which are antagonists at the beginning, but two sides of the same coin at the end. H, the interrogator and torturer, actually hates his job, he is cynical about the clean-hands of those who want him to do horrific things without taking moral or political responsibility; H. has a soul, and he is somewhat another victim of the system. Agent Brody is a serious and decent woman, but once the situation turns for the worst outside, she too gets embedded and feels like torturing the terrorist herself; she ends thinking that torture is justified if valid items of info are got, otherwise not, but... that is not a position, really, that is still a dilemma. The terrorist, moreover, is not a dark-skinned middle-eastern, but a white sweet-looking American man, who loves his family, his country and his religion, who is willing and prepared to be tortured to get what he wants.
I found all the leading actors good in their roles: Samuel L. Jackson as interrogator 'H', Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Brody, and Michael Sheen as terrorist Younger (Yusef). However, Sheen and Jackson outshine the rest. You cannot even believe that Sheen is the same actor who played Tony Blair in "The Queen", so good he is here. Jackson plays a very difficult role with sensibility (if that is possible) and humanity.
The atmosphere of the movie is aseptic and cold, distant and theatrical in a way. There is no warm colours or elements at all (beyond the blood), and it looks like part of a sci-fic grim future movie. However, that cold detachment is needed to follow what happens, because the level of violence is extremely high (although less gory you can expect), very disturbing and depressing. The fact that H. has some humanity and is a loving father, another victim of the system, sends a dangerous message, and unintentionally excuses the torturer.
The tempo of the movie is not good, and that affects it from mid footage until the end. I thought that the search for the bombs by the FBI was going to have more weight in the movie, as it was also challenging and interesting, but soon the viewer realises that this won't happen. A more balanced approach (FBI approach and Military approach combined) was needed, but the movie eventually opts for the second as main focus of the story. On the other hand, when the movie gets really-really interesting and challenging, when a new oh-wow twist appears in the story, the film ends. Ploff! As if the editor had cut the movie before its time by mistake. By doing so, the viewer, or at least me, wonders whether the director and writers had the balls to provide an answer to the moral questions they present in the movie. With this end, the answer is no. However, there is an alternative ending.
The alternative ending, actually the real ending (which is available in the USA Blue-Ray and DVD's extras but not in the one I saw in Australia!), shows that, after all, the writers and directors had the balls to give an answer to their questions and show that torture does not serve for anything if the terrorist has no moral or emotional breaking point, which is always the case. In fact, the end of the movie, the real one, says that the end does not justify the means and it is a waste of time. You better look for the bombs! I guess the American producers and the American establishment, or perhaps just the public, would not be happy with that sort of ending.
A thought-provoking film, claustrophobic and difficult to watch.
