A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

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). In 1974, the bright-young-thing Eddie Dunford (Garfield) is an ambitious crime reporter for The Yorkshire Post, who takes it on himself to probe three similar cases of missing or murdered teenage girls, which puts his own life on the line. He hits every nook and cranny of procedural clichés, from losing a dear colleague Barry Gannon (Flanagan). who knows too much of the dirty business (after being inauspiciously warned about his own safety) nevertheless withholds crucial information from Eddie, to the police's porous covering-up of the culprit with a scapegoat Michael Myshkin (Mays), until Eddie meets Paul Garland (Hall), who channels a shopworn ambiguity between a grieved damsel-in-distress and an inscrutable gangster's moll, whom he incurably falls in love with. Finally his path comes across with John Dawson (Bean), a local real estate magnate, and after succumbs to an excruciating reality check signed by both Dawson and police force, Eddie despondently realizes he cannot save nobody, a final vigilante bloodbath is his last gamble to right the wrong in the only option he is left with (again, manipulated). The movie is shot in subdued retro-sheen, Garfield fleshes out Eddie's fix with absorbing commitment, and Hall is magnificent to behold in her blond charisma.

A rookie Yorkshire journalist (Andrew Garfield) sets out to solve the case of a child murderer.I'm a sucker for good journalism movies, and I think this one is especially strong. Garfield is a great actor, and the 1970s setting adds something more to the story. I was not familiar with the director before this, but now I may have to keep my eyes open for his future projects... this could be the best in the trilogy.What I love about good journalism stories, this one included, is that they operate like detective stories... but the rules are more flexible. Journalists need not do everything by the book, and can sometimes go places a detective would never go... at least not in uniform. Can this journalist uncover the truth?

well i very eagerly started to see the first movie of this trilogy & really enjoyed it for good 30-35 minutes. i won't hover over the storyline or the direction because it is based on a book & the mood and settings of the story doesn't allow the director to experiment with the plot or screenplay sometimes so benefit of doubt goes with the director.i would like to throw light on my findings.well the speed of the movie is way too slow as the events take more emotional turns then the kind of genre the original book claims to be.With due respect to the author of the book what i mean to say is that if you are making/writing a suspense or crime drama you have to keep feeding your audience or readers with enough doses of shocks or twists every now and then; which is missing in plenty here. though i understand that every crime drama cannot be all about bloodshed with dozen murders to tell a tale but when i saw the movie my heart & mind were longing for elements which make a mystery movie tick in the minds of the audiences.i enjoyed the first half an hour but after that i kinda lost it..police is beating a journalist.. well if you want to scare someone why not hire a couple of pro's for it.. why give a hint that event the law is involved in this. A clever enemy never shows his identity. but if the main purpose of the book was to portray social & political background like corrupt lawmen & capitalistic industrialists then i would have seen the Blood Diamond, Syriana or something like that..but when i go for a suspense & crime movie well you can't overshadow the suspense shades of the story than emotional part there must be a balance which was missing according to me!! Another thing which seemed odd to me the very reason given by the main culprit in the climax just was not digestible because that was the very first reason which forced the lead character to begin his investigation so i am not complaining but i was shocked because i have read many fictions and never came across something so short & plain that it seems childish well again i know that the writer must have had his own reason & thought process to justify the events & their outcomes but they were not worth a movie making material.so for me it started on a good note but it disappointed me in the last one hour or so. It is a good reading material (the book)not for screen adaptation( at least this part)!!The lead actor has given a powerful performance but otherwise not much to do for others.I respect the original writer it was production company's shortsightedness to adopt the story for silver screen. watch it if you can handle out of the league movie with similar thought process story! my rating 6/10.

RED RIDING: IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1974 – CATCH IT ( B+ ) The Red Riding Trilogy caught my attention Once I heard about Andrew Garfield signed on to play Peter Parker in SpiderMan-Reboot. Red Riding is a mixture of the real events collaborating into factual events but nonetheless it's really enjoyable with all its creepiness. The movie starts off as young girls getting kidnapped and brutally murdered and it end up becoming more than just a Kidnapping, Murder mystery; it becomes more of a political Bonanza. Andrew Garfield is a Phenomena; I'm just amazed how ease and brilliant he is as an actor. You see an average looking geeky guy and when he acts he blows you away. I first saw him in "Boy A" and was literally stunned by his honest portrayal, it was just outstanding. Then I saw his comic timing in "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" which was another exciting experience. Now since he is making big waves through trailers of "Never Let Me Go" and "The Social Network", it was my pleasure to watch his gritty & Cookie side in "RED RIDING: IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1974", Andrew blew me away with his cockiness, grittiness and wickedness. Rebecca Hall is picture perfect yet again, she may not have a star power but nonetheless she is one of the talented British actresses around. Sean Bean & Robert Sheehan did a fine job. Overall a gritty and wicked movie which at times becomes too much to digest but maybe the novel was as complex as the movie was, a good attempt so I be watching the next two movies in Red Riding Trilogy as well, but sadly it doesn't have Andrew Garfield.