Fantastic!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

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.

"Red Riding: 1980" follows more or less the same formula as the first installment: an illicit sexual relationship complicates an investigation--and provides a disturbing commentary on, a series of grisly crimes against women. "Red Riding: 1980" introduces a new main character: Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine), a "clean" Manchester cop being brought in to investigate the local police force's handling of the high-profile "Yorkshire Ripper" case. To date, 13 women have been killed by what is presumed to be one person, but there have been no arrests and little progress. (Events in this movie are loosely based on an infamous real-life case.) Peter's hand- picked team includes two past associates: the businesslike John Nolan (Tony Pitts) and Helen Marshall (Maxine Peake), with whom he previously had an affair. Hunter gets little help but plunges ahead, discovering that one of the 13 victims may have a different killer. Hunter begins to the investigation, thinking it has something to do with his previous visit to Yorkshire in 1974, when he rubbed the local authorities the wrong way while investigating a shooting. As Detective Hunter delves deeper into the case, it becomes increasingly obvious that incompetence isn't likely to blame for the lack of progress made by Yorkshire police. The acting in "Red Riding: 1980" is improved from it's predecessor. Paddy Considine is an established, respected actor and it shows in his performance. The members of the supporting cast, with the exception of Maxine Peake, are solid. Warren Clarke is very good at being an utterly despicable villain despite limited screen time. This second film, directed by "Man on Wire" James Marsh, was shot in 35mm widescreen. The more polished look however, does nothing to diminish the ominous atmosphere- -or the sense of oppression accompanying the setting. In all three films, Though the films--each by a different director--share some of the same characters, there's no epic build from one episode to the next. Rather, after each part concludes, the next more or less begins from a standing start. "Red Riding: 1980" is the movie in which the trilogy comes into its own. Gone is the uneven pacing associated with the first film. The film itself is sturdier than it's predecessor especially as its pace tightens with Marsh displaying a palpable mastery of tension. This production starts at a high level and proceeds on a clear and strong trajectory. It tells its own story while at the same time expanding the canvas of the overall tale. The ending completes the individual arc--but leaves the viewer yearning for more. It's hard to imagine anyone watching this film not seeking the time and opportunity to see the final volume of the trilogy.

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

The second installment in the Red Riding Trilogy set in 1980, is even better than the excellent first part. The putrid corruption of the West Yorkshire police is , if possible, more pronounced three years later. Their sheer incompetence is easily revealed during the desperate search for the Yorkshire Ripper,diabolical serial killer praying on prostitutes. The atmosphere of the second part of the trilogy is as a gloomy and depressing as ever,not unlike the lives of the unfortunate souls unlucky enough to end up in this hellhole of a place. I am eagerly awaiting the ending of this harrowing story in one of the best TV project I've seen after the legendary " Prime Suspect".