PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

lasttimeisaw 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). Finally in 1983, Detective Inspector Maurice Jobson (Morrissey) , who appears in all three films, holds court in the final one, he is one of the corrupted, but his guilty conscience begins to catch up with him, after a new incident of a missing girl transpires, and he seeks help from a medium Mandy Wymer (Reeves), who evokes his buried memories pertain to his involvement in the investigation in 1974. Simultaneously, a paralleled plot-line introduces a thickset solicitor John Piggott (Addy), the son of a former compromised police officer, visits Michael Myshkin (Mays, a distressingly disturbing scene-stealer, makes great play between prevarication and innocence to the full) in the prison and tries to defend a wronged suspect of the current investigation, Leonard Cole (Kearns), who is Michael's best friend and the son of Reverent Marin Laws (Mullan), but fails due to the atrocious injustice. While, a male prostitute BJ (Sheehan), a pervasive existence in the trilogy, released from the jail and fetches a rifle on his way to vendetta, the three tributaries will converge in the home of Reverent Laws, to bring the seedy crime conspiracy into daylight in the end of the day, yet, the ultimate demise is far from satisfactory, the canker within the institution remains untouched, it is estimable to be so unwavering to expose the ugly truth, but the aftertaste is too disillusioned to purvey a balanced assimilation. Albeit there is no visible sign-posting in its time- frame jumps, which certainly impedes the viewing experience, the third one at least does a fair job to dot the i's and cross the t's. In a nutshell, RED RIDING trilogy is a juggernaut exposé of the society's underside and in retrospect, heralds some more forensic procedural output in UK's televisionary landscape, like THE FALL (2013-to date).

NateWatchesCoolMovies Sean Bean Week: Day 7The Red Riding Trilogy is one of the most dense, absolutely impenetrable pieces of work I've ever seen, let alone attempted to dissect with my clunky writing skills. It's also fairly horrifying, as it chronicles the tale of the Yorkshire Ripper, an elusive and mysterious serial child killer who terrorized this area of Britain through the late 70's and early 80's. Viler still are the strong implications that very powerful people, including the brass of the West Yorkshire police, made every disgusting attempt to cover up the crimes and protect the killer, who's murders included that of children. It's a brave move by UK's Channel 4 to openly make such notions obvious within their story, and commendable the level of patience, skill and strong ambition in the undertaking is quite the payoff, whilst simultaneously taking a toll on you for sitting through it. The sheer scope of it must be noted; it's separated into three feature length films, each vastly different in setting, character and tone, and each blessed with a different director. The filmmakers even went as far as to film the first, which is set in 1974, in 16mm, the second in 35mm being set in 1980 and the third makes a leap to high definition video and takes place in 1983. Such a progression of time is a dismal reflection of the sticky corruption which clings to societies, decaying them stealthily over years, and the few keen individuals who will not let the truth die as long as there is a glimmer of uncertainty. Now, if you asked me exactly what happens over the course of this trilogy, who is who, what has happened to which characters and who is guilty, I simply wouldn't be able to tell you. It's a deliberately fractured narrative told through the prism of dishonest, corrupt psyches and has no use for chronology either. Characters who you saw die in the first film show up in the subsequent ones, actors replace each other in certain roles, and there's just such a thick atmosphere of confusion and despair that in the 302 minute running time I was not able to make complete sense. I think this is a great tactic to help you realize that the film means to show the futile, cyclical nature of reality, as opposed to a traditionally structured story with a clear cut conclusion. Events spiral into each other with little rhyme or reason, until we feel somewhat lost, knowing full well that terrible events are unfolding in front of our eyes, events that are clouded and just out of our comprehensive grasp in a way that unsettles you and makes you feel as helpless as the few decent people trying to solve the case. One such person is an investigative reporter searching for the truth in the first film, played by Andrew Garfield. He stumbles dangerously close to answers which are promptly yanked away by the sinister forces of the Yorkshire police, brutalized and intimidated into submission. He comes close though, finding a lead in suspiciously sleazy real estate tycoon Sean Bean, who's clearly got ties to whatever is really going on. The level of willful corruption demonstrated by the police is sickening. "To the North, where we do what we want" bellows a chief, toasting dark secrets to a roomful of cop comrades who are no doubt just as involved as him. The kind of blunt, uncaring dedication to evil is the only way to explain such behaviour, because in the end it's their choice and they know what they're doing. Were these officers as vile as the film depicts in the real life incidents? Someone seems to think so. Who's to know? Probably no one ever at this point, a dreadful feeling which perpetuates the themes of hopelessness. The second film follows a nasty Police Chief (David Morrissey) who is bothered by old facts re emerging and seems to have a crisis of conscience. Or does he? The clichéd cinematic logline "no one is what they seem" has never been more pertinent than in these three films. It's gets to a point where you actually are anticipating every single person on screen to have some buried evil that will get upturned. A priest (Peter Mullan is superb) shows up in the second film only to be involved in dark turns of the third. Sean Bean's character and his legacy hover over everything like a black cloud. A mentally challenged young man is held for years under suspicion of being the Ripper. A disturbed abuse survivor (wild eyed Robert Sheehan) seeks retribution. A Scotland Yard Detective (Paddy Considine) nobly reaches for truth. Many other characters have conundrums of roles to play in a titanic cast that includes Cara Seymour, Mark Addy, Sean Harris, James Fox, Eddie Marsan, Shaun Dooley, Joseph Mawle and more. The process in which the story unfolds is almost Fincher - esque in its meticulous assembly, each character and plot turn a cog in a vast machine whose purpouse and ultimate function are indeed hard to grasp. I need to sit down and watch it at least two more times through before the cogs turn in a way that begins to make sense to me, and a measurable story unfolds. It's dark, dark stuff though, presenting humanity at its absolute worst, and in huge quantities too, nightmarish acts that go to huge levels of effort just to produce evil for.. well, it seems just for evil's sake, really. The cast and filmmakers craft wonderful work though, and despite the blackness there is a macabre, almost poetic allure to it, beauty in terror so to speak. It's rough, it's long, it's dense and it thoroughly bucks many a cinematic trend that let's you reside in your perceptive comfort zone, beckoning you forth with extreme narrative challenge, an unflinching gaze into the abyss no promise of catharsis at the end of the tunnel. There's nothing quite like it, I promise you.

bob the moo For the previous two films in this trilogy I had my reservations even though I enjoyed the grim tone and the good performances from a host of recognizable faces. I think part of it was that it felt like maybe there wasn't much behind the atmosphere and grim faces but that this delivery worked in its favor? Perhaps but for sure in this final film the content is really rather exposed as not being up to as much as the critical praise would suggest and ultimately we have a rather unsatisfying conclusion which retrospectively hurts the other films as well.Where the films started out with corruption lurking behind murders, they generally were just about kept believable within the real world context that the films tried to retain. In this final one though it really feels like it gets too big and too serious and I found it hard to get into because it all became such a fiction. The plot here jumps back and forth in time but does so without any warning or signal that it will do so, which did throw me for a few seconds as I tried to figure out why characters who had died seemed to be up and about showing no signs of death. This occurs to fill in details and information to help us with the current plot (a lawyer investigates the original swan-wing killing while a policeman reaches the end of his moral tether) however there is a problem with this structure. The problem is that it feels like we were deliberately kept in the dark – I understand some of it is a mystery which is being revealed but it was known from the first film who did the killings and who was involved in the cover-up and why they did it, so the flashback don't "reveal" so much as flesh out and they do it in a way that made me wonder why such scenes were not in it earlier since I was there at the time.These things distracted me from the biggest annoyance which is that this film connects to the first one but has very little with the second film. The reason I rushed into seeing this third one was the basis of the revelations and twists at the end of the second film and it was disappointing to see that basically the second film would easily have been dropped since it doesn't add a great deal in the middle when viewed in context of the complete trilogy. The irony is that the third film is significantly weaker than the second one. The time-jumping is a little off-balancing although it does work in filling in the character of Maurice at least but I really didn't like the use of the medium as a major plot device – it really clashes with the grim realism thing it had been doing and just seems lazy as a piece of writing. The connections all coming together don't satisfy as they should either – again the bigger they get the less they work and the network is too tight to convince.The performances and the grim atmosphere continue to cover for the weaknesses. Addy is good because at least his performance differs from the majority since he is more innocent and wide-eyed than the grim lot. Morrissey plays the other extreme well but mostly it is dead-eyed tiredness that he does, albeit well. Support from Clarke, Carter and others is good but in some cases they have little to work with in their characters (Mullan in particular). It is a shame then, but this film doesn't come together and it is additionally disappointing since this third film needed to bring the other two to a close and make the trilogy strong. It doesn't do this and instead it feels like the material reaches too far and unravels as it approaches an unsatisfyingly convenient and delivered conclusion. I quite enjoyed the previous two films even though I didn't see what all the critics and IMDbers were raving about – in the light of the third I am even more mystified about why this trilogy got such universal adoration.

Metal Angel Ehrler (The following review is a follow-up on the reviews written for Julian Jarrold's "Red Riding: 1974" and James Marsh's "Red Riding: 1980"; for further info on the Red Riding trilogy and content related to the series' continuity, read the other reviews before this one.) The excellent Red Riding trilogy has finally come to a close...and it went out with quite a bang! Anand Tucker helms the final film, "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1983" and does a pitch-perfect job of joining the two previous films, solving up most of the enigmas that had been ignored, and closing the circle. Tucker is a master at his characters' catharses and at carefully observing and commenting on the infinitely heartbreaking human characteristics of revenge, redemption and atonement. Tucker concludes Jarrold and Marsh's films in this way: he extracts Jarrold's poignancy from "1974" and Marsh's intelligence from "1980", mixes them and adds his own masterful touch while tying the loose ends of each film's plots. The result is, as I've said before, an excellent closure to this harrowing series and a very satisfying finale.The film returns to 1974, and the opening scene shows us the corrupt and darkly evil group of villains we've already come to know assembled in a country estate, including Harold Angus (Jim Carter), the seedy police superintendent, and Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey), the mysteriously cryptic and detached crime investigator. The child murders we saw in the first film are only just being discovered by the police, and their shady dealings with John Dawson (Sean Bean) are beginning to be discussed. Then the film shifts us to the year 1983, where attorney John Piggott (Mark Addy) is being commissioned to appeal for the killer of the three girls, whom his family believes to be innocent (and secretly, so do we).The film dangerously shifts between 1974 and 1983 without letting the viewer know. At first we're confused to see so many characters who're supposed to be dead already involved in present-time events, but as the film goes along it is all explained. Tucker is interested not in the chronology of events or making sense out of the twisted plot...after all, what sense can ever be extracted from such base crime and corruption? We eventually manage to sort the plot out, and by then we just KNOW that no matter whether the events make sense or not, the depravity and evil behind it all can never explain itself to our consciences. Tucker digs deeper into the Yorkshire murders than Jarrold and Marsh could because he can play with all of the characters from the previous two films, giving us everybody's side of the story, everyone's point of view and every person's true face (as opposed to the mask they've been painting all along). And the new character (Piggott, the attorney) who we've only come to know is such an ambiguous, flawed and relatable character that (even through his weak points) he becomes the most human character of the film. Piggott leads the investigation taking place in 1983 and Maurice Jobson leads a covert investigation back in 1974 parallel to Eddy Dunford's (but obviously laden with a corrupt agenda).Once again, the film builds a steady tension that reaches unbearable heights as each minute passes on, as as the answers to all the questions we had are revealed to us, we can't help but lift our hands to our mouths and stare open-eyed at the horror behind the truth. The first two films dealt with one person trying to expose the guilty murderers and crime lords; this film is about the murderers and members of the Force seeing how they can cover up their footprints, how they can redeem themselves from tainted consciences, and how they can go on living while internal disagreements arise. And Anand Tucker, who has shown us with films like "Hilary and Jackie" and "Shopgirl" that he's a master at exploiting guilt and internal conflict, makes the most of his characters and blows them up from the inside out.I can't say anything about the ending without spoiling everything for you, but I WILL say that the series couldn't have ended better. I saw these films on DVD, in the comfort of my bedroom, and as soon as "1983" was over I felt like jumping to my feet and clapping my heart out. I'll never tire of repeating this: I am amazed! Overwhelmed, really.I've recently heard that Ridley Scott's been taken into consideration to direct an American film which joins this trilogy into one full-length feature. That is just ridiculous. These three films put together amount to over FOUR hours and a half, and not a minute is wasted in any of them. Trying to summarizing this will take out the POINT of it all, and is sure to be a flop (after all, there's a reason why the British made this into a trilogy). I seriously recommend you see this before the USA releases its own reduced version. This is as good as trilogies are ever gonna get. Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!