Too much of everything

Awesome Movie

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Set against a backdrop of serial murders during 1974-1983, including the Yorkshire Ripper killings, the books and films follow several recurring fictional characters through a bleak and violent world of multi-layered police corruption and organized crime. "Red Riding: 1974" sets up a fantastic trilogy- but can viewed, as it stands on it's own. Much of what becomes background material for the second and third films works effectively as the main story for this movie. "The "Red Riding Trilogy" is gritty and brutal--an immersive viewing experience. Over the course of 302 minutes, we are sucked into a virtual world of corrupt police and establishment figures of West Yorkshire in England. In 1974, Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield), a young reporter from the Yorkshire Post, tries to find information on a series of missing girls. Meanwhile, John Dawson (Sean Bean), a local businessman and developer, bribes members of the West Yorkshire Constabulary (WYC) and local councillors into letting him purchase local land and gain permission for a shopping centre he has planned. This is done by burning down a Roma camp previously existing in the area. One of the murdered girls is found on Dawson's land, having been tortured, raped, and strangled, with swan wings stitched into her back. Young, cocky and naive, Dunford pushes his investigation into dangerous areas after being forewarned to stay away. "Red Riding: 1974" is a bit of a challenge, and is not easily summarized--and it demands constant viewer attention. A two-minute trip to the kitchen could end up costing you dearly. For American audiences, there is an additional problem--the accents are so thick that it can be difficult to decipher dialogue and entire passages may be missed. There are versions of the trilogy with subtitles that help tremendously. Only in the third and final chapter of the trilogy, "Red Riding: 1983"-- all the pieces of the dark puzzle finally find its place--revealing the terrifying truth behind the disappearance of the girls.

'RED RIDING': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five) Three part UK TV adaptation of author David Peace's quartet of books published from 1999 to 2002. The stories center around serial murders, missing children and most prominently police corruption. They feature several recurring characters which play minor supporting parts in some chapters and much bigger and more developed roles in others. The cast features the likes of Andrew Garfield, David Morrissey, Paddy Considine, Mark Addy, Sean Bean, Rebecca Hall and many others. The films were written by Tony Grisoni and directed by Julian Jarrold, James Marsh and Anand Tucker (each directing an individual chapter). They were released on UK television in March 2009 and theatrically in the US in February of 2010.The films are each titled 'RED RIDING: IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD...' and the year that each chapter is set in (1974, 1980 and 1983, they exclude the second book set in 1977). The first film stars Garfield as an arrogant reporter, named Eddie Dunford, who takes on an assignment for the Yorkshire Post investigating the disappearance of missing girls. He butts heads with a local businessman, named John Dawson (Bean), as well as the dirty police Dawson's involved with. He escalates his investigation to dangerous levels that eventually put his life as well as others close to him in danger. The second chapter centers around a police officer, named Peter Hunter (Considine), assigned to head up the Yorkshire Ripper murders investigation. Flashbacks are drawn to the first film, which help further explain it as well as this installment, and the story again all revolves around corrupt officers of the law which Hunter of course comes into conflict with. The final episode revolves around a supporting player from the first two films named Maurice Jobson (Morrissey), a corrupt police officer who has to deal greatly with his conscience, in this chapter, for his involvement in the crimes from previous episodes. It also focuses on a naive public solicitor (Addy) who comes to the defense of a wrongfully convicted mentally handicap young man (from previous story-lines).The films jump around a lot from present day to flashbacks without explanation, which make them very hard to differentiate (at least at first). They also move between several different story-lines rapidly and from key characters to others frequently without taking the time to allow the viewer to adjust. Besides these flaws the audio is horrible, making a large amount of dialogue very hard to comprehend, and the pacing is sometimes almost non existent. As you can tell the films are far from perfect and often leave the viewer lost, bored (as a result) and aggravated. Despite this they are beautifully shot, compelling at times and involving to a certain extent. They'll leave many desiring repeat viewings (multiple I'm sure, just to fully understand them) which is a compliment, even though they brought on the urge for this desire to begin with. Even when you don't know what's going on (which is very frequently) you can tell that it's something that could be very interesting and entertaining. There's a lot of potential here for some great entertainment but it's obviously poorly handled on so many different levels. A truly great missed opportunity.Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS7EjRs-tOE

I missed this trilogy when it was first shown on TV, heard great things about it, and finally caught up with it when they repeated it recently.A mystery about a series of child abductions eventually turns out to be more about corruption in the Yorkshire police than anything else, but boy what a production! This has to be one of the darkest, most downbeat slices of television I've witnessed, and yet it's so well made, so compelling that you can't stop watching.Garfield's cocky journo wasn't my favourite of the series leads - I felt no sympathy for him - but what a supporting cast! Sean Bean headlines as the big name, but it's a shock to see friendly favourites like Warren Clarke playing complete bastards.The story meanders with one too many sub-plots to easily follow, but things gradually become clearer as the trilogy progresses. More than anything I'm reminded of Scorcese's TAXI DRIVER as a similar story of one man's disintegration...

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.