Instant Favorite.

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

A rookie Yorkshire journalist (Andrew Garfield) sets out to solve the case of a child murderer.I'm a sucker for good journalism movies, and I think this one is especially strong. Garfield is a great actor, and the 1970s setting adds something more to the story. I was not familiar with the director before this, but now I may have to keep my eyes open for his future projects... this could be the best in the trilogy.What I love about good journalism stories, this one included, is that they operate like detective stories... but the rules are more flexible. Journalists need not do everything by the book, and can sometimes go places a detective would never go... at least not in uniform. Can this journalist uncover the truth?

I must have missed something while watching "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974" because I did not see a spectacular film as some tend to say about it. What I saw was a well made film but nothing so outstanding about a journalist trying to stop a serial killer who murdered little girls back in 1974. Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield) is a persistent yet very naive journalist trying to solve the case behind the disappearance of some girls from the surroundings. The more he goes with the story he'll find more and more trouble, to the point of having a strange tendency of getting punched by corrupt cops who don't want him near of the people who might know what's the truth behind the deaths. Haven't we seen that before?The film wasn't strong enough to make me feel deeply interested at certain parts (the course of Eddie's investigations are quite boring, so in order to lift things higher the director gives us lots of sex scenes, a little bit pointless but interesting to see, specially because Garfield is in all of that). It's very well made, well acted specially by Garfield and Sean Bean, who plays a powerful businessman. The historical reconstruction, art direction and costumes (the corny pants Andrew wears are priceless) are really good. But I'm a little saturated of plots like that, very surpriseless and very obvious. So, I made my point of what works in this piece. If you think you should see it go forward. It's up to you. Totally recommendable for fans of Garfield, Bean, Eddie Marsan, Peter Mullan, David Morrissey and others. 6/10

I know a lot of people thought that the trilogy was a let-down, but 1974 has floored me both of the times that I watched it. This one stands as one of the most impressive works of 2010 to me. The visual style immediately drew me in, gripping me into this world and putting me right in the shoes of Eddie Dunford. I love plots like this, with a guy just fighting against everything to bring down corruption. It's all so gritty and so dark, and expertly draws you into this dangerous, despicable world without fail.Andrew Garfield is perfect in the lead role; he was practically made for the role of this sly and naive journalist walking into the lion's den. His charisma and do-gooder attitude goes through hell throughout the duration of the film and he plays every second magnificently. The character makes such a brutal, wrecked transformation throughout the film and Garfield is right there hitting every single step without fail. I know some people have had some backlash against his sudden popularity, but that really just doesn't make sense to me because he came out of nowhere last year with three performances that were absolutely extraordinary.Rebecca Hall is superb in this one as well, proving again that she is one of the finest actresses of her generation. She brings this cold vulnerability to her role that is very chilling and sticks with you when the film is over. Two superb performances in a very dark, excellent picture.

OK, this is noir, for sure. But it also shines for its shallowness and emptiness.The movie opens with what promises a complex investigation about the murders of several girls, mixed with some political corruption.But here is the catch, because it doesn't go anywhere further. The main character, Eddie Dunford, doesn't have a clue about anything. Neither about the case, neither how to proceed, neither about the basis of his job as a journalist. (though he claims and boasts a lot to be one) The acting is well performed, though it's always difficult to say so when characters and situations are incoherent.I admit the cinematography is perfect, in the mood of old 70's thrillers, which can lure many into considering it makes a good film, just because it looks smart.Nevertheless, the scenario suffers from weakness and evasiveness. The main character is stupid and his main achievement would be to receive the result of one life's work and researches of his dead and more gifted friend, then give it to a cop.So here is another movie with a beautiful photography, a static scenario, a stubborn and stupid character, whose pointless actions lead to absurd and nonsensical situations I found hard to believe. The famous "willing suspension of disbelief" failed to work here as far as I'm concerned.I think I miss Chinatown, and will need to watch it soon after this mess. All the more so it looked promising.