Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

A_Different_Drummer This is part 2 in the trilogy, also known as the "non-awaited sequel" to one of the most dreary and depressing films of all time. I did review the first part, and so, duly forewarned BY READING MY OWN REVIEW, I did indeed know what I was getting myself into, but I have always liked watching Paddy Considine work at his craft, and that was my reason for continuing. The story? Deep, dark, bleak, corruption in a police department that is itself located in one of the deepest and darkest parts of England. How bleak you ask?? Let me simply say that the main story, the corruption, is set against a narrative backdrop of a serial killer who is also known as the "Ripper" -- and that part of the story generally offers the viewer a refreshing and upbeat tempo change from the central theme. Note, BTW, how the number of IMDb members reviewing this second part has dropped dramatically from the first. This trilogy is almost a psychological marathon, and those who can't take the pain, or fear they may possibly do themselves harm, just fall by the wayside and wait for the Red Cross van to collect them. In my review of Part I, I noted that the ending, amazingly, redeemed the entire production. I wish I could say the same here, but, as I write this, they are removing my belt and shoelaces...

Rodrigo Amaro A few things have changed between the first "Red Riding" and this one and I'm not talking about the years in between both stories. On the similarities, yes, both films are completely overestimated by their audiences, both are good films not great ones and they are trapped on similar suffocating presentations that almost makes them weak films.Instead of the masochist investigative journalist with an quite exciting life here we have an detective (Paddy Considine) following the steps of a new Jack the Ripper killing women out there, in the England of the 1980's (although this man started the killing back in the 1970's). The movie brings back some characters of the previous movie like the ones played by David Morrissey (again, reduced to a few lines, his part gets bigger in the third film) and Robert Sheehan (BJ) and gives us some flashbacks with the journalist Eddie (Andrew Garfield) repeated here from a different perspective. Lies, corruption, dirty schemes are also part of the intriguing but confusing plot.I gotta recognize that this was a little bit more effective than the first film since in that I couldn't get what the writer and director were trying to do. The semi-originality of this flick is being a movie about catching a killer without displaying gallons of blood and fake make-up, "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1980" instead prefers to be more about the hunt for the killer than to show what he does and how he does. Just by hearing his methods of killing you get terrified, disgusted. It's the kind of film you can easily suggest to people who are afraid of seeing horrible things on the screen. However, this originality pays some high cost with more demanding viewers because it's presentation is painfully slow, more tedious than the first film (there's no sex scenes with Andy so, there's no lift up's and probably you'll sleep easier here), very talky for a film of its kind, it takes a ridiculous time to really something new happen during the course of investigations. The surprise at the conclusion worth all the while, it's really good. Fincher's "Zodiac" is hundred times better if we have to draw some comparisons.I can't complain about the acting, all actors are great. Fans of this series of films will enjoy it without complications. It's good, not very good but good. 6/10

charlytully "In the north we do what we want, even if it means letting Fluffy adapt the SOUND AND FURY of four books into three indecipherable movies." That's the credo of the bunch who tried to churn out Britain's answer to the Scandanavian THE GIRL WHO . . . trilogy, but were too cheap to spring for one flick per book, ditching 1977 (unlike the HARRY POTTER or TWILIGHT people, who are splitting books into TWO films!). Well, generally, you get what you pay for. While Britain's A-Team of actors nearly all show up in the Potter movies, the made-for-UK-TV RED RIDING films are populated by a bunch of ugly character actors doing ugly things in an uninvolving way barely adequate to hold attention for one feature, let alone three. Evidently, everyone involved has an ax to grind against the British enclave called West Yorkshire, as every manner of pervert finds safe haven there from the police, most of who are psychopathic murderers themselves. Birds of a feather flock together, as Queen Elizabeth II might mutter, while munching another swanburger. "Guess what, many cops are corrupt" could not be the sole basis for a Hollywood movie. But with their quaint customs of the Changing of the Funny Hat Guard and unarmed bobbies, apparently this is big enough news to naive Brits that even mud pies with a police corruption theme will be eaten up by the public there. After reviewing the mishmash of David Peace's acclaimed novel quartet made by the three RED RIDING movie directors, one can only conclude that Fluffy (Hogwart's three-headed guard pooch) could have done at least as well.

Leofwine_draca The second part of the RED RIDING trilogy takes up the storyline three years later. The eventual capture of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, serves to muddy the waters of investigation but a new detective aims to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.It's like the first film, but not. This is more of a police procedural, which may well be because of the detective lead (Considine gives a solid performance here). Once again, police corruption is the order of the day as we finally learn just how deep it goes.It suffers a little from being the middle film in a trilogy - thus only a few loose ends are tied up here - but makes up for that with an ultra-frightening performance from Sean Harris (ISOLATION) as one of the most disturbed coppers you'll ever see on screen.