Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1980

I'm assuming you have watched "Red Riding 1974" before you watch this movie or read this review. I'm saying this, because I will talk about the first part of the trilogy as if you've seen it. So while Garfields character is "gone", we get a new main character played by Paddy Considine. And while many might know him playing comedies, he definitely is up to the task at hand here.

This one feels quite a bit different tonally then the first one. While the characters remain appalling (new ones and the known ones from part one), it still has a dark appeal to those who get involved in it. But through all that, I still felt that it wasn't as good as the first one. I thought the first one was more to the point, whereas this one tries to connect and tell a new story. Still very good and if you have seen the first one, you surely have to see this one too. And as another reviewer said, if you like movies like Zodiac (Finchers one), than you will love this one.

The second film in the Red-Riding trilogy is another haunting almost hallucinatory tale of revenge and justice. Paddy Considine is excellent as the slightly cerebral and introspective officer assigned to review the failing investigation into the Yorkshire ripper, and the whole cast give performances of a very high class. The shocking corruption of the Yorkshire police revealed in the first film now intertwines into the real life history of the ripper's crimes and the bumbling investigation which was still fixated on the (hoax) tapes and letters in a fascinating but terrifying way.

It feels like a lot of material is woven into the film which expects you to pay attention and work stuff out. Having said this I found the film easy to watch, it didn't drag at all but like many great films it requires you to think a little. I really will need to see it a second time to try and piece together all of the threads, this is dense and exciting storytelling - perhaps not for everybody but hopefully this will find the audience it deserves.

Some say that the corrupt police story is too fantastic, but we know for a fact that some people were fitted up (via beatings and falsifying/withholding evidence by the police) for major crimes during this period (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four etc.) and that some police such as the Vice squad in London were running a very lucrative protection racket in Soho with senior officers (DCS) directly involved. Without giving away the plot the story here only goes slightly further and seems 'believable enough' to me.

Although essentially produced as 'TV Movies' the first two films (and I expect the 3rd to be the same) have been of a higher standard than about 95% of film releases, I strongly urge anyone who likes intelligent crime noir to see these films if you get the chance.

At last, some intelligent, challenging, original drama. Difficult at times? Yes, but that makes it stay with you. Channel 4 have become known for reality TV like Big Brother and way too many 'lifestyle' shows, they never brought 'The Wire', they've lost their way. But this is such a step in the right direction, David Peace is the outstanding British crime writer of his generation, prior to Red Riding being screened, I'd read '1974', 'GB84' and 'The Damned United'. Now I'm reading the one from the 'Red Riding' Trilogy not adapted, '1977'.

So I at least knew any adaptation would not be your conventional cop show, despite this, all these three films screened set a benchmark. The acting is superb, though it's fiction intertwined with fact, they pull it off.

At the start of this film, Warren Clarke as senior cop Molloy, monologues to camera, almost it seems in a trance, reasoning, appealing to the Yorkshire Ripper, trying to understand and almost plead with him. Like a star shell in my head, I recalled the senior policeman in the real Ripper investigation, George Oldfield, doing something not that different on national TV, 30 years ago. He was being broken by his failure after years and with bodies piling up, to catch the Ripper, he would stake everything of the tape and letters from the 'Ripper' taunting him.

They were hoaxes, the completely different accent on the tape caused the Police to let the real Ripper slip through their fingers at least once. A couple of years ago, DNA advances caught the Hoaxer over 25 years on-from samples on an envelope he licked to seal in 1978, he was a hopeless alcoholic on the DNA database for minor disorder offences.

The above sounds an unlikely story, so although Red Riding has plots that to many may seem outlandish, real life can be too. There was a culture of corruption, fitting people up and worse, in some British police forces in the 1970's. There was corruption with developers and politicians. David Peace has taken these, added his own touches, to construct what he has called 'Occult Histories', including as in GB84, the 1984/85 miners strike. 'Occult' as in alternative, rather black magic/Satan etc.

What the three films in this trilogy have done, is take the writers vision off the page and onto film in a stunning, memorable and accomplished fashion. A heap of BAFTA's surely await?

And get that DVD out!

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.

After the brilliant ending of the first part of the trilogy, I expected a lot from this second part. In the beginning, this follow-up didn't meet my expectations but after I've had accept the new style and the new story line I began to appreciate this movie a lot.

This movie takes place six years after the ending of the first movie. Peter Hunter, played by a brilliant and insightful Paddy Considine, comes back to Yorkshire after he had investigated on the shooting scene that took place in the end of the first movie but he wasn't able to resolve the crime at that time because his wife had lost a child. A few years later, he comes now back to resolve the crimes of the Yorkshire Ripper who had killed thirteen young women. But the demons of the past are still present and Peter Hunter wants to resolve the case he had once to abandon. But as he is torn into a circle of lies, corruption and criminality, his enemies tries to stop his investigations.

The second part of the trilogy has a slow paced beginning as the first one and the connections to the end of the first part are not yet visible. Later on, there are some flashbacks and memories that explain what has happened after the tragical ending of the shooting scene and in the end of this second part, we get to know what really happened as Peter Hunter meets an eyewitness that was present during the shooting and what happened afterwards. The ending of the movie is well done even if it is a little bit too predictable.

A part of this interesting story line in relation to the first movie, this film is much more a personal drama than a suspenseful thriller. The search for the Yorkshire Ripper is not really addicting and the solution of this case is rather silly and boring. That's the main weak point of this movie as this investigation is an unsatisfying deception. They should have elaborated a little bit more on that or they should not have included this detail at all.

What is interesting about this movie is the personal drama part of it. The movie talks about love, passion and loss and Peter Hunter who lives all kind of difficult moments and uneasy emotions. The movie talks about such difficult topics like isolation or abortion and those details make this movie really authentic and emotional. Maxine Peake as Hunter's colleague and lover Helen Marshall does an outstanding and credible job as well as Bob Craven as a menacing, provoking and ugly police officer or Peter Mullan as the religious and mysterious Martin Laws. Every character is quite well developed and this is the strongest point of this movie.

All in all, this movie is a different genre than the first one. It is rather a drama than a thriller. Once you have accepted that, you will like the profound characters and the talented actors in this movie as well as the interesting connection to the first movie. What rates this movie down is the weak side story line around the Yorkshire Ripper and the fact that the second part of the trilogy has not the same intense atmosphere of a film noir as the first part that did a slightly better overall job. But still, I think that a seven star rating is acceptable for this second part, too and I recommend you to watch this follow-up.