NateWatchesCoolMovies The 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.

Sindre Kaspersen English television and film director Julian Jarrold's television film which was written by English screenwriter, producer and director Toni Grisoni, is the first of three adaptations of English writer David Peace's Red Riding Quartet (1999-2002) and was succeeded by "Red Riding 1980" and "Red Riding 1983". It was screened at the Melbourne International Film Festival in 2009 and at the 36th Telluride Film Festival in 2009, was shot on location in West Yorkshire and Leeds independent studios in Northern England and is a British production by Revelation Films which was produced by producer Andrew Heaton, producer Anita Overland and producer and casting director Wendy Brazington. It tell the story about Edward Dunford, a young journalist who returns from the south after his father has passed away. Edward is looking to become a crime correspondent and shortly after a 10-year-old girl named Clare Kemplay has disappeared on her way home from school, he begins his trial period at the Yorkshire post and is given one month to prove himself by assistant chief constable Bill Molloy. As Edward gets further into the investigation of the disappearance he is warned by his friend Barry about a local construction magnate named John Dawson and meets Paula Garland who is the mother of one of the missing girls. Finely and acutely directed by English filmmaker Julian Jarrold, this fast-paced fictional tale which is narrated mostly from the protagonist's point of view, draws a riveting portrayal of an ambitious reporter who is drawn into a world of high level corruption during his first assignment for a local newspaper and his relationship with a secretive woman. While notable for it's naturalistic milieu depictions, fine cinematography by cinematographer Rob Hardy, production design by production designer Cristina Casali and editing by film editor Andrew Hulme, this character-driven and narrative-driven psychological thriller depicts a dense study of character and contains a great score by British musician and composer Adrian Johnston.This poignantly and forebodingly atmospheric, darkly humorous, unsentimental and somewhat romantic neo-noir which is set against the backdrop of West Yorkshire in 1974, is impelled and reinforced by it's fragmented narrative structure, subtle character development, various characters, interrelated stories, multiple viewpoints and the prominent acting performances by British actors Andrew Garfield, Rebecca Hall, Sean Bean and Eddie Marsan from the great ensemble cast. A multifaceted and consistently suspenseful mystery.

buddybhupender 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.

steven-222 One of the stupier movies I've seen in a while. The "heroic" journalist is a borderline idiot, and masochistic beyond all reason; he seriously needs to get a clue, but never does. He's just a punching-bag for the bad guys.The plot is highly contrived, with lots of way-too-convenient coincidences. Lots of gloomy, nihilistic atmosphere, if you like that sort of thing, and lots of hand-wringing over what a wicked, wicked world we live in, but ultimately this movie is not up to much.(But yes, Andrew Garfield is nude...a lot...if that is what you were looking for.)