Wonderful character development!

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

A binge watching of RED RIDING TRILOGY, three TV movies adapted from David Peace's RED RIDING QUARTET, where its second chapter 1977 is skipped. Directed by three different directors in three different formats: 1974 by Julian Jarrold in 16mm film, 1980 by James Marsh in 35mm film and 1983 by Anand Tucked with Red One digital camera, the trilogy forebodingly trawls into the organized crimes and police corruption in West Yorkshire through the prisms of three different protagonists while they are wrestling with a series of murder cases, and overall, it inspires to achieve a vérité similitude of the bleak milieu while sometimes being mired with its own navel- gazing, such as narrative banality (1974), over-calculated formality (1980) and poorly indicated flashback sequences (1983). The police corruption which disclosed in 1974 turns out to be just a tip of a humongous iceberg, in 1980, after the inaction of the current head Bill Molloy (Clarke), our protagonist is Assistant Chief Constable Peter Hunter (Considine, in an atypical clean-cut appearance), who takes up the gauntlet to investigate the notorious Yorkshire Ripper case (inspired by the real events), which has already claimed a dozen lives, mainly female prostitutes. But soon he will meet more resistance and pressure from within the police department when he is tipped that one of the victims might not be the ripper's work. The tension retains in a high-strung tenor when we see a diligent Peter being taunted by the reprobates on a daily base, in particular from officer Bob Craven (Harris, reprised his role from 1974, and he is so delectably sinister through and through), the lowest scum of the earth. There are some gnawing hitches mined in the narrative, a key confessor is timely dispatched when he refuses to divulge the information on the phone but also has no intention to meet Peter in the hotel where he stays, instead, he asks Peter to come to his home in the witching hour, only to a sorry outcome. Also, it is unwarranted for Peter to appoint Helen Marshall (Peake), his former adulteress, into his team, to further complicate his scrape, plus a superfluous subplot of his broody effort is ironically dismissed by Helen's unsolicited abortion. After finally revealing the bloody picture of that singular murder (not done by the ripper), which connects to the finale of 1974, the story again, sets up a chilling twist to be brutally honest about to which rank extent the forces of law and order has been sullied.

A team of investigators attempt to stop a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper from claiming his next victim, but uncover something far more terrifying.I really appreciate this story being set in the time of the Yorkshire Ripper. That gives me something familiar, but not something overdone. And although the focus seems to be on a team of detectives trying to track the Ripper, this is more or less just a jumping off point, because it never seems like the story is heading towards a resolution at a quick pace.(In real life, West Yorkshire Police were criticised for the time they took in apprehending the real killer, despite interviewing him nine times during the murder hunt. Owing to the sensational nature of the case, they were having to handle an exceptional volume of information, some of it misleading, including a hoax recorded message and letters purporting to be from the "Ripper". So the pace is not inaccurate.) This is a good film, but somehow never seems to reach the level of part one. This may be my bias, though, as I prefer journalists over detectives... but even the feel is off. It seems like James marsh was going in and out of documentary mode, while the previous film just wanted to tell a good story.

Well shot and acted and all that, but if you think you're going to get a remotely satisfying ending with this trilogy, be forewarned. I signed up for IMDb just so I could vent at how much bulls#@!$ this final piece is. Not only does it plod along, it plods along to almost nowhere (there's a small amount of resolution), and then just kind of ends. All of the protagonists in this one are weak, and things descend into lubricious melodrama, that, on top of that, is completely implausible. Don't waste your time.Just because something is "gritty" and deals with extreme themes does not make it good. And just because a story has the "guts" to not allow for happy endings or catharsis, does not make the evil characters' actions logically plausible. The whole conspiracy in this series would be so difficult to pull off as to disallow suspension of disbelief. It's like the writer was like "we're edgy, we'll make it so that barely any justice ever happens to show that sometimes the good guys don't win. Damn, we are so raw!" But ignore how reality actually works.Damn, this mini-series (especially this installment) made me angry. I wish I could see it walking down the street so I could punch it in the face. Repeatedly.

(this review is a follow-up on the "Red Riding" trilogy; for previous references, including further information on the trilogy, read the review for Julian Jarrold's "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974") Once again, Yorkshire's Channel 4 and Revolution Films' admirable "Red Riding" trilogy has managed to completely absorb me. The second part of the series is directed by James Marsh (from the exceptionally good documentary "Man on Wire") and here we see how hiring three different directors for each film works to the trilogy's advantage: Julian Jarrold established an emotional basis in "1974" as well as the main characters who sully the British government with unimaginable corruption; his work hovered on poignant emotion, his characters opened our minds to the horror behind the crimes his film exposes...in short, "1974" served as a gritty introduction to what promised to be a fabulously dark series. Now James Marsh takes over with the second film, "1980", in an even grittier and more suspenseful tone.This second film introduces us to Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine), a criminal investigator who (like Eddy Dunford in the first film) is transferred to Yorkshire to investigate on a series of brutal crimes. This time, Yorkshire has been haunted for over four years with the infamous Jack the Ripper, who's already claimed thirteen victims, all prostitutes, and who has all of England terrified. Unlike Dunford who was an over-excitable but keen rookie, Hunter has ample experience and a very methodical and controlled way about him; we can see he's an expert at what he does and that he has no trouble managing his team and interpreting his information. He's replacing Bill Molloy (Warren Clarke) as the chief criminal investigator of the Yorkshire police (much to the Force's chagrin) and is met with instant dislike from his new co-workers and once again, the ever-cryptic Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey) leaves him on his own, mysteriously distancing himself and reserving any kind of comment.Unlike Dunford too, Hunter has all the files available to him and is working with the support of the police, which should make his job easier; he's been allowed to assemble his own team, and he includes an agent/old lover of his, Helen (Maxine Peake), on the investigation. He comes to discover that the Yorkshire police is contemptuous of him not only because he's basically taking over their investigation but because, while making his inquiries, he comes into contact with many people involved in the shooting at the Kawasaki club (the place where the denouement of "1974" happens in one of that film's final scenes). Naturally, his involvement with this incident speaks of danger to the corrupt elite of the Force and Hunter will soon find that his life is in danger...and that Jack the Ripper is NOT the greatest of Britain's troubles.James Marsh does an excellent job. He's not as keen to observe the poignancy behind his characters' emotions, but that may be because his characters aren't meddling rookies but true professionals. Paddy Considine does an excellent job with the lead role; observe how Hunter always keeps his cool, how he gauges each situation and intelligently leads his words into exacting truths from the people- even when the film climbs to nerve-shattering heights, this man seldom fails to control the situation. Even the romantic subplot between Hunter and Helen is very controlled; unlike Dunford and Paula in the first film, the couple here are matured, logical people who rarely let their emotions betray their actions, no matter how much pain we read in their eyes.The pace of this second film is quicker, too. Here we see Marsh's "Man on Wire" skill over again; scenes roll by quickly, the multi-layered plot twists and turns almost seamlessly, there's rapid-fire dialogue and some very logical, quick-witted analysis of facts...we can see how meticulously well Marsh (and screenwriter Tony Grisoni) worked over the story. That's NOT to say, though, that the film is merely an exercise in plot and story-writing, leaving characterization and emotion completely to the side. No, Marsh uses his characters' personalities, troubles and traumas to move the plot along. Let's just say that this film has a more 'mature' air about it, that it seems more logical and intelligent than the previous one, which means that the horror and suspense will be plot-driven rather than emotion-driven.Once again, the film starts out with the investigation of gruesome murders but strays into a completely different subject (namely police corruption). This is not a flaw in the film- it wasn't a flaw for the first film either- because this "Red Riding" trilogy is interested in shedding some horrifying light on the nature of corruption; it makes us think about how deeply-rooted it is in our society, how we can't run from it...the murders are the inciting incident, a subplot even. In the first film, Dunford was an inexperienced journalist so the police had little trouble dealing with him; here, they're dealing with one of their own so the stakes are raised. THAT, I think, is what heightens the suspense of it all.By the end of "1974" and "1980" you'll be more than overwhelmed with the harrowing world you've been introduced to. James Marsh, his cast and his crew do an excellent job with "1980" giving us some of the best crime noir in a long time. I can't wait to see the third and final film! Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!