Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1983 (2009 TV Movie) User Reviews (34)

Red Riding: 1983

[lost-in-limbo · 8/10 · 19 March 2010]

Here we have the final chapter of the this turbulently dark and maturely free-flowing three part mini-series, picking up three years after the second chapter, the story for 1983 might be a little convoluted (with the plot digging further into past events --- where some passages are set-up flashbacks leading us to even more surprises) it still was a fulfilling, harrowing and exciting way to close it off. It might not reach the heights of the first two chapters, as it came down a notch but for me it didn't disappoint and remained just as acceptably engaging as the previous entries.

1983 sets the story that another young girl has vanished from the same area, where nine years earlier (set-up in the first chapter; 1974) a young girl's mutilated dead body was found with angel wings. Detective Maurice Jobson was originally on the case with an autistic man Michael Mishkin being accused of the murder/s, but now of this new development the family of the accused seeks the help from dreary lawyer John Piggott to get an appeal. At first hesitant, but Piggott learns some astonishing facts from Michael about police brutality and corruption at the core. There he goes on trying to take on the Yorkshire police on his own. While Detective Jobson seems to be having a change of heart and starts digging in to the case wanting to do the correct thing, which some of his fellow officers begin questioning.

1983 pretty much follows on from 1974, as while 1980 seemed there more so there to connect/hold together some issues that worked its way in. The sprawling plot brings together all the pieces (child abuse, serial murders and police corruption) to put them as one; as every little detail, lead and revelation about this deeply crafted and intelligent crime story comes to a conclusion. Recurring characters seem to find themselves being wrapped up too and it actually centres more on the endlessly brutal actions of the police behind closed doors. The story was never about the bigger picture of police corruption and violence, but just a small note of it with how this case (and also Yorkshire ripper) was manipulated for self-gain and power… the series focused on that aspect.

Here the narrative for the last chapter is about someone trying to make a difference, no matter how much they're out of their league or badly tainted. This can be seen from the viewpoint of two central characters ; lawyer John Piggott and Detective Maurice Jobson. Both have regrets and troubled minds, but see this crusade to not turn a blind eye and at least add a touch of hope amongst such bleak, unflinching and fearful circumstances. David Morrisey had lesser roles in the early films, but this one its all about his character's transformation in what is a superbly reflective performance as Jobson. Mark Addy is also outstanding as lawyer Piggott. Then there's a third character; BJ (Robert Sheehan) who ties all the incidents together from all three chapters. The support is up to game with brilliant show-ins by Warren Clarke, Jim Carter, Daniel Mays and Peter Mullan.

Director Anand Tucker just like the other additions captures the times through place and time, embarking with a visually crisp look but never forgetting the glassy and hardened edge that made this series an uneasy and challenging viewing. What always left a mark with me throughout the series, were the music scores and this chapter was no exception. Gloomy, but soulful and emotionally tailored.

An unforgettable and stimulating TV crime drama.

The Sun Never Shines In Yorkshire.

[samkan · 8/10 · 14 March 2011]

Almost literally. In truth there are a few moments featuring outdoor scenes where the sun MIGHT be out amongst clouds, though camera and lighting do their best to avoid such potential charm. And therein are presented the underlying themes of evil, greed, debauchery, misery, hopelessness and...... did I mention....evil.

The Red Riding Trilogy is a five hour adventure into a dark world of vile corruption, pedophilia, brutality, fear and futility. It is certainly not without merit. It features police corruption and brutality as well or better than anything I've viewed. (Example: When a mentally deficient character wets his pants upon sight of the cops we understand entirely his reaction.) The lead characters, arguably there are four, are so flawed that they function less as protagonists than as faint glimmers of humanity. Yet they are genuine to a fault. The bleak hopelessness of the British working class is well supported by the lighting, tinting (its neither color nor B&W) and drab settings. There is certainly a story in here somewhere, not so much moved by the characters as by the ugliness of human nature and it's ability to overwhelm the good.

Rather than say the RRT would be better pressed into a single feature length film, the true merits of RRT would be better presented as a multi-part, episodic production more slowly introducing and intermingling the various characters. RRT is certainly more about characters and their natures, reactions and failings than anything else! As I mentioned before, only arguably have we four main characters. The story, quite artfully, ebbs and flows re the importance of and emphasis on certain people. A seemingly minor character is a plot devise at one point, only to be more fully drawn much later. An eight or ten part RRT, at an hour a shot, would/could provide something as engaging as ; e.g., a BBC Dicken's production. Imagine a modern day Bleak House adding drugs, sex, gruesome violence and overwhelming fear.

The major problem with RRT is that what we ultimately learn to be the great evil has by then become so obscured by characters and emotions that it almost gives new definition to anticlimax. There may -or quite possibly may not - have been sufficient clues, dialog, etc. attending to the "story" to have made its outcome satisfying. Assuming there were enough such tips (this is arguable!) by the end of RRT the viewer is far too exhausted to piece the story together. In a nutshell, the backbone story/plot takes such a distant backseat to the grittiness, characters and tragedies that it will be long forgotten before RRT's fears and tears are still remembered.

Criminal Thriller is not a word I will use for this, more like: Disturbing.

[nodisalsi · 8/10 · 20 March 2009]

The Red Riding trilogy is not something one would normally watch for comedy style entertainment. The underworld criminal corruption and fascist bastard Yorkshire police encountered so far in the first two parts are just touching the surface of this crime drama; beneath this is sick, violent and twisted evil. And the final episode lays it bare.

I have to say the performance by the cast is extraordinary. Sure, you can say that actors like Sean Bean and Paddy Considine do possess a degree of cool and that they easily endow upon their character roles. However, in the final part, something happens which really surprised me and gave me the creeps.

The setting for this trilogy: 1970-1980's Britain, has touched a nostalgic nerve in me - a 40 year old Brit. However, my memories of Gypsies, vandalised cars on the street and the grassy wilderness that carries on from the back garden are all fond memories of my childhood. Red Riding brought me back into these days and these places, and introduced a host of beastly horrors and brutal realities of which - until now - I was blithely unaware.

Finally, I guess that in conclusion, I was specially targeted by this. But it may just be well-written, expertly researched, quintessentially British, supported by a great cast and neatly photographed. And the impact that was intended for the end - certainly worked on me.

A bit convoluted, but a decent enough wrap for this series

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 7/10 · 6 June 2009]

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

It's 1983, and another young girl has gone missing from the same school and the same area as a girl who was found dead with angel wings nearly ten years earlier. This throws the past and the present together in spectacular fashion, as the family of Michael Mishkin (Daniel Mays), the impaired man accused of the murder all those years ago, ask troubled lawyer John Piggott (Mark Addy) to take his case and help him mount an appeal. The trouble is, Mays confessed and this is hard to appeal against. Instead, Piggott puts pressure on the local police to look into claims of police brutality and corruption in getting Mays's confession. But remorseful Detective Jobson (David Morrison) remembers his partner's unorthodox approach from years ago and tries to put things right, leading to a devastating conclusion that will shatter everything.

Red Riding has been a thinly rewarding show to get involved in. Maybe it's something you need to watch a few times to really pick everything up, but while it's pleased with itself as an intelligent and original drama, it comes off just as much as a confusing and muddled story that might have tried to be a little too clever for it's own good. This final part supposedly wraps everything up, but hardly in a neat and tidy fashion.

The concluding part of the whole shebang comes together like a nice looking car where all the components fall apart once you switch on the engine. While the most important parts seem to have been wrapped up smoothly, there still feels like a lot of subplots that haven't been taken care of or that maybe there was too much to take in anyway and by the end it's all blown your mind a bit. Atmospherically, the show's excelled but while the story keeps you glued to the end, it all ends up feeling like a bit too much style over substance and that's stopped it from being a brilliant series and instead an average one. ***

A kick in the chest after three equally great films

[dbborroughs · 9/10 · 5 June 2010]

Final part of the Red Riding Trilogy (based on the Red Riding Quartet) concerns the events that transpire several years past the previous film. The Ripper is in prison, as is the killer of young girls. The trouble is that another young girl goes missing and its echoing the nastiness that the police are desperate to keep buried.

I'm feeling like I was punched in the gut. This is a descent into pure evil and there seems to be little hope of escape. To be honest I'm not sure what I just saw but I need a bath.

Time tripping film requires one pays a great deal of attention since the story meanders back and forth through time in such away that its not always clear when we are. Its a film that closely mirrors memory as we shift through several characters time lines. The un-rooted effect keeps you off balance which when coupled with the films continuous revelations creates an effect similar to being hit by a truck. I know some people don't like this film much because it seems so disjointed but I think if you can go with it you will be richly rewarded. (this is not a film to watch on fast forward, something I think at least one reviewer did) Supposedly the three Red Riding films can be seen separately and still have them work, and I think that's the case with the first two films in the sequence. Personally I think the first film works completely on its own, and while numerous plot points are left hanging, there is nothing to say that the story must go on. Similarly the second film works when viewed alone. yes there are references to the earlier film, but until the final minutes I think it works on its own terms.

That is not the case here. Here the film bounces through time and refers so much to what has gone before that the anyone who watched this with out seeing the previous films would have none of the back story or the references to earlier events. I know I would have wondered why some things were not explained.

I know the unease is such that even the ending which has some great images some how has a different sort of impact than one thinks... it is some how fitting for a film (and a series) that has confounded my expectations.

What do I think of the three films? I think the films have a great deal of power. I think they are quite good. I also think that I need to see them again, partly to see what I missed previously and to have it all knitted together. But at the same time I need to see what the films were getting at. I'm still not sure what all of this is about short of a look at festering corruption.

If you want challenging film-making see the films.

The philosophical conclusion

[kluseba · 7/10 · 7 November 2010]

This third part of the mini series presents once more a different genre with this very insightful and philosophical conclusion. The movie is less darker and brutal than the first two ones and talks more about hope than desperation. The movie talks about moral, forgiveness and remorse and presents once more a few new and profound characters.

The movie has three main actors and begins with the fact that another young girl has been kidnapped nine years after the last murder.

The remorseful cop Maurice Jobson, played by the brilliant David Morissey, wants to stop the insanity and begins to question the corruption, the violence and lies within the police. He falls in love with a clairvoyant and wants to save the kidnapped girl with her while his partners try to find a scapegoat for the new crime. He realizes that he has done some mistakes in his life and wants to change. He is now looking for forgiveness, truth and justice.

The second main character is the fat and disillusioned lawyer John Piggott, played in a rather mediocre way by Mark Addy, whose father was one of the corrupt police officers that has been killed in mysterious circumstances, helps after much hesitation the mothers of the two scapegoats that are or have to go to prison for crimes they didn't commit.

The third main character is the young and homosexual BJ, brilliantly played by Robert Sheehan, who has escaped from Torkshire and travels around the country to come back for a last act of vengeance.

All those three characters come together in a grand finale. But before this conclusion, the story meanders back and forth through space and time and creates connections to the first two movies and even new connections beyond that. Those scenes help to create once more some very diversified and profound characters but it is sometimes difficult to follow this pattern and to understand what is happening right now or in the past. There are many flashbacks and changes of space and time in the movie and that makes it less dynamical and intense to watch than the first two ones. The strong point of the movie are the interesting characters and the fact that many points are explained and many questions are answered to that haven't been before.

But I still felt disappointed about the conclusion. It seems too simple to me and I would have liked to have some more original explications, for example concerning the connection of the businessman Dawson to the murders.

Because of the conclusion and less intense atmosphere, this third part is the weakest one of the series in my opinion. But I still gave seven stars because of the interesting characters and the fact that almost everything is explained in the conclusion of the movie. The philosophical style of this movie is very interesting but I preferred the drama style of the second or the first movie that was a great film noir and my favourite part of the series.

All in all, this trilogy is interesting to watch and really presents three different kinds of a movie and creates connections in between them in an interesting way. Artistically, those series are really well done and most of the actors did an amazing job. But there is a lack of suspense in this slow paced series and the criminal investigations are rather boring. It was a good idea to watch the series, but honestly, I wouldn't but it or watch it again for a while.

1974: 7,5 stars 1980: 7 to 7,5 stars 1983: 7 stars

An excellent closure to 2009's best trilogy!

[MetalAngel · 9/10 · 13 September 2010]

(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!

Conclusion ... or is it?

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 22 September 2010]

The last part of the "Red Riding"-Trilogy (I'm assuming you have seen the other two at least), this concludes the story. The real main player here, was a side player in the previous ones (though he did have more to "say" than we might have guessed in those movies). The second guy who has a main role, is a solicitor. And while he is reluctant at first, he seems to get his head around to become more involved.

But again as with the other characters throughout the series, there are no real likable characters at hand here. Someone called this an adult approach to the thriller genre. You have to figure out, how you feel about that, of course. You might find it dreadful. On the other hand, this is a great thriller. It just needs it's time to unfold. And all the loose points get together at last ... Though some might be disappointed at what we get served ... I personally still feel, that the first movie was the strongest.

"To the North...where we do what we want"

[Leofwine_draca · 8/10 · 16 January 2011]

And finally the loose ends are tied up in the last part of the acclaimed RED RIDING trilogy. This time around, a low-rent lawyer and a cop with a conscience combine forces to expose the child killer who has been eluding police from the very beginning.

I'm a sucker for a happy ending and this film gives us one - well, sort of one. I found the story punchier and although events become even darker - and more shocking, if that's even possible - there is hope, finally, in the full-on powerhouse ending.

What a coup in casting Mark Addy as the sympathetic lead (he's usually typecast as lovable rolly-polly types since THE FULL MONTY back in the day)! David Morrissey is given a chance to shine, too, putting memories of BASIC INSTINCT 2 into the distant past. The series definitely ends on a high and it's nice to have some closure after everything that happened.

what went wrong?!!!

[dealmeida-sandy · 6/10 · 11 February 2010]

I can't quite put my finger on what was so terribly disappointing about this trilogy.

Beautifully shot, check.

Decent script and dialogue, check.

Amazing acting, check.

Great art direction, check.

Trite, convoluted and completely implausible, check.

I don't know, somehow it just didn't come together well. A lot was amiss. It was worth the watch (Although there's not much I wouldn't watch that features Northern England in the 70's). I was essentially engaged from start to finish and I've been thinking about it since, but just not what it coulda shoulda been.

Extremely disappointed.

A Brilliant Piece of Soon To Be British Cult Drama

[jfcthejock · 10/10 · 21 March 2009]

What can I say, this show was gritty, sad, depressing, moving, touching and it made you hate the bad cops with vigour and even I detested them through all three parts of this thrilling trilogy. This is indeed very close to Life On Mars, but so very much darker. No humour just pure grit and dirt and it was a brilliant show. Police corruption, obsession and murder. This programme showed the dark side to the very people we trust to protect us, and if it was bad anywhere then it is always going to be the north due to no control or observation of the police.

Through every episode from the first part where we saw the darkness grow and only win, with only one victory. A few of the corrupt cops and the man behind it all being killed by the hero journalist, but it was short lived as we saw in the end. With part two we thought that it would come crashing down on the evil cops but it didn't with another hero dying and losing his life to the people he thought were his friends and fellow officers. Finally part three, we all thought that it would end with the corrupt evil police officers getting away with their sins and deeds and they indeed do but a small victory shows itself, a small one yet the first victory for the good in a long time.

Red Riding was entirely gripping through each of it's parts and it never slowed down or put me off from watching it through. Hard hitting, sad, and truly heartbreaking we all were glued to our seats as a nation to this well wanted drama. I hope for the rest of its viewers they were happy with its conclusion as I was because this show deserves only praise and not criticism. A piece of soon to be cult television without a doubt, something hopefully our next generation is told about and views it themselves to know British television is to be matched.

The Conclusion!

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 25 March 2016]

Plagued by guilt, a corrupt police official attempts to solve the case of a missing schoolgirl after seeing connections between her disappearance and a rash of prior abductions.

In this final chapter to the Red Riding trilogy, we go back to the beginning. No longer are we concerned with the Yorkshire Ripper, but we go back to check on Andrew Garfield's journalist and why his investigation failed. We see the man who was wrongly accused and what had become of him... and just maybe we can now find the real culprit.

For me, the first film in the series was the best. This may be the second best because it attempts to tie up some loose ends. The second film really seems more or less a place holder. Yes, it is part of the story and has some of the same characters (though not many), and yet I think it could be cut out more or less entirely and still we would have a coherent story.

Pretensious incomprehensible and veering towards garbage.

[Alex-Tsander · 4/10 · 21 March 2009]

Warning, "spoiler" here...the comic book Mr Big of the piece is shot dead in part 1 ( 1973 )...but somehow hes walking around giving out alibis for people in 1983...dressed in the same turtleneck. Or was that a "flash-back" from 1983 to 1973? But wait a minute, the bloke he was giving an alibi for was being tortured and citing him for an alibi in 1983! So hows that work? Its anyones guess really.

Oh, that rat, are we supposed to think of 1984? Why how terribly clever!

One of my brothers was a policeman throughout the period covered in the series. Another of my brothers quit "The Force" in the sixties largely because he couldn't tolerate the daily tide of corruption that he witnessed. So I have no illusions about what a corrupt, venal institution the police was then or the kind of characters who were, and very often still are graced by Her Majesty's uniform. The character of Gene Hunt in Life On Mars was uncannily reminiscent of my own brother at that time, except for lack of the almost regulation moustache.

Well, Red Riding got the moustaches right, as well as all the other period detailing. But the goings on portrayed as regular activities of the local Bobby, shooting up bars with MP5 submachine guns, having Wild West shoot-outs in the station basement, "extraordinary renditions" of troublesome journalists to Chilean style work-outs for days on end at a warehouse...are utterly and ridiculously over the top. Can anyone name a single case of incidents such as these on record? Deaths in custody. Yes. Beatings and even murder of suspects, yes. But running around doing "deals" with submachine guns like Snake Plisskin in LA, give us a break! As for the much prior vaunted "atmosphere" created in these films, all it amounted to was the digital equivalent of a tobacco-filter giving everything a sepia tint. Comically crass. Almost like the workmanship of that satirical movie-director character created by Benny Hill.

The first episode had, in effect, no plot whatsoever. OK, Mr Big is linked to a serial killer and protected by the police who keep beating up the journalist who tries to expose the truth. So far, so simple, so cliché. So trite. Then in Part two The Names start to roll. The cast list of named characters continues to roll throughout part three. If you cannot keep up with this continual "he said, she said, he would, she would, the other said, his son and his daughters boyfriend" ...and I certainly couldn't...then you have no chance trying to make head nor tail of whats happening. Except The Cops Are BAD! Thats all it amounts to. Then at the end of part three we learn that, surprise, surprise, its everyones favourite candidate for local nonce that did it! Why should understanding a movie depend on the viewers ( I stress "viewers" ) ability to remember great lists of names and correctly attach them to characters glimpsed briefly in fleeting earlier scenes. Heres a clue to the director, its supposed to be a MOVIE, or TELEVISION, NOT a book or a radio play.

All in all, I was massively disappointed. The preceding hype for this series of films can only have exacerbated that. When one is persuaded to spend six hours of ones precious time on something, one feels cheated when it turns out to be such dross.

I think that young actor who, in the trailer, pompously boasts that "...if it had been an ordinary cop show I would not have taken part in it" will, I fear, live to regret that statement.

I would have awarded the series one point out of ten, but for its at least serving the purpose of showing the British police in a dim light ( quite literally ), which certainly constitutes something in its credit. Hence my awarding it "4".

Postscript.Before anyone cries "foul", we saw no submachine guns...no we didn't SEE them, but remember the scene when the weapons used in the attack on the bar are enumerated. Two of the guns used, it was revealed, had been MP fives.

A binge watching of RED RIDING TRILOGY - Part Three 1983

[lasttimeisaw · 7/10 · 20 December 2016]

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).

The final piece to a fine trilogy.

[nesfilmreviews · 8/10 · 1 March 2013]

The seemingly untouchable, corrupt West Yorkshire police, and the true evil mastermind behind the child abductions and murders of the last 14 years, can't resist doing it again. "Red Riding: 1983" sets the story that another young girl has vanished from the same area, nine years earlier. "Red Riding: 1983" cycles back to the terrible events set in motion in "Red Riding: 1974", when a series of young girls went missing and a mentally retarded man, Michael Myshkin (Mays), was wrongfully convicted for the crime. Detective Inspector Maurice Jobson (Morrissey), a regular if mostly background character in the first two films, becomes our first focal point here as a man deeply wrecked by his complicity in the Yorkshire Constabulary's general lawlessness.

In 1983, another young girl disappears, and Jobson decides to do some actual police work--and reopening several old cases his colleagues would prefer to keep closed--and sniffing around the likes of series constant Rev. Lawes (Mullan, with the omniscience and eerie stillness of a very dark angel). Simultaneously, in the trilogy's first dual narrative, another lead emerges in the form of John Piggott (Addy), a sad-sack solicitor and Yorkshire native who reluctantly agrees to file an appeal on behalf of Myshkin. Piggott marks the trilogy's most uncomplicated hero.

It may come as a surprise that the ending of "Red Riding: 1983" adds a dose of hope to its brackish main course. "Red Riding: 1983" provides a fitting conclusion to a whole that is, in some ways, greater than the sum of its parts." Red Riding" is an effective crime thriller, but it's an even more striking drama about the dark parts of the human soul and man's capacity for inhumanity. The third movie represents the middle ground between the promising-but-uneven" Red Riding: 1974" and its sequel, the shocking and haunting "Red Riding:1980." This time around, there's less in the way of a stand- alone narrative as screenwriter Tony Grisoni, working from the novel by David Peace, stitches closed various plot holes. The finale doesn't answer all of our question, but it provides a sense of closure and clears up a number of nagging questions left over from the previous two segments.

What we can take away from all of this is not just an investigation into a series of child murders. This is an in-depth character study of three (or four) main protagonists--as they slowly unfold a ring of corruption surrounding an era of a very specific locale of the UK. As things get "hairy" within each of our main characters' worlds, rather than dig deeper into the case, they instead spend three quarters of the running time of each film digging deeper into their own psych--and begin to like what they see in themselves less and less.

nice wrap up

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 21 May 2016]

In flashbacks, Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey), Bill Molloy, Bob Craven, Harold Angus, Dick Alderman, Jim Prentice, and others from the police are taking control of the vice trade in the north. They invest in the shopping mall being built by John Dawson (Sean Bean). It's 1983. Ten year old Hazel Atkins goes missing and Jobson wonders if they got the right man Michael Myshkin for the earlier dead girls. He is directed to medium Mandy Wymer (Saskia Reeves) who claims that there is a Wolf, a Rat, and a Pig. The Swan is dead and under the beautiful carpets. John Piggott (Mark Addy) is a local boy turned defense lawyer. He's asked to appeal Myshkin's conviction. His father was known as Arthur the Pig. Jobson known as the Owl arrests Myshkin's friend Leonard Cole. Piggott tries to sign him up as his lawyer but he is found hung in jail. Meanwhile, BJ is released from prison and Martin Laws is the local reverend.

This third installment returns the story back to the kidnapped girls. It is sorely needed after taking a side trip in the second installment. I can do without the medium. Her revelations could easily be given to Myshkin. It is a nice wrap up although this is something that needs to be binged. A lot of the first movie needs to be remembered to fully appreciate this movie. David Morrissey and Mark Addy deliver emotionally conflicted characters. The final reveal could be more twisty. It is mostly about waiting to find the various animals.

The Summing Up: All Three Parts Disturbing, Grisly, Worth Your Time

[museumofdave · 9/10 · 1 March 2013]

In two words, brutal and disturbing. But also complex, adult, respecting the viewer who wants more than a linear tale with loose ends all strung up very neatly; its a close-up of a society in decay, of a police force that fails to have a moral compass, of some dark perversions lurking where one least expects to find them. The performances are uniformly excellent, and each of the tales, separated by a few years, showcase a specific individual into whose motivations and feelings we are allowed access: a journalist, a federal investigator, a local policeman. Be warned that there are graphic scenes of torture, that often a clue dropped in Part 1 is not picked up until Part 3, that character motivations, like those of our own, are not always crystal clear. There are 300 minutes of intensity, filmed with immediacy if not always clarity, and worth an immersion for the willing viewer.

The Third & Final Chapter Of The Red Riding Trilogy

[CinemaClown · 27 August 2015]

The final chapter of the Red Riding Trilogy, In the Year of Our Lord 1983 brings its crime & corruption saga to its conclusion and follows a corrupt police officer who's being plagued by guilt over his wrongdoings and decides to redeem himself by trying to solve the case of a missing girl after seeing connections between her disappearance & similar cases in the past.

Once again employing the fractured narrative style, this third chapter does tie up the loose ends and brings its story & character arcs full circle but then, it also lacks the very sense of hurriedness that final instalments usually have for the pacing is slow and whatever secrets & mysteries are unraveled over the course of its runtime never really come off as shocking or surprising enough.

The performances are a definite plus, the theme of redemption plays a big role and most of its character are finely handled but the whole experience of sitting through this trilogy still leaves a feeling of incompleteness for I expected a far more gripping story than what it had in store. If you enjoy slow-burners, then Red Riding Trilogy is worth checking out but it'd be better to go in blind & finish the trilogy in one sitting if you want the optimum experience.

Very well acted but.....

[Brentdavids · 6/10 · 1 March 2014]

This mini series was very well acted and its a good interpretation of the books. They are dark, intense and nasty. Both the books and this series leave you feeling unsatisfied IMO. I enjoyed reading and watching them however and as per my title there are some great performances by pretty much everyone involved. If you read the other reviews those that have rated it 4/10 have made some really valid points which I go along with but I believe the acting drags this up by a couple of points. Special mention to Jim Carter who is brilliant, as always. Why doesn't someone give him the lead in something? He's come a long way since a humble PC in Juliet Bravo (Chief Constable now!)

Dark, dense, haunting

[NateWatchesCoolMovies · 10/10 · 3 April 2016]

Sean Bean Week: Day 7

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.

Problem -- You can't get there from here..

[A_Different_Drummer · 7/10 · 2 January 2014]

Since it is possible I am one of only seven people on the planet who has made an effort to watch this trilogy OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINAL BROADCAST TIME, voluntarily and without duress, and I have reviewed the two prior episodes on the IMDb, I will try to give you a taste of this final chapter. Not an easy task. The good news is that, of the 3, the feel and direction is the most assured, that is to say, the narrative (confusing as it is, AND IT IS!) moves along smartly and keeps the viewer busy. Which is a good thing, since things got so dark in the second instalment that the DVD sleeve came with the number of the local suicide hotline pre-printed. And buried deep beneath all the confusion and obfuscation (much of which is done to the viewer DELIBERATELY) there is a nice sub-theme of redemption for not just one but two of the central characters. Which is nice film-making and a bit of a treat. Also liked Mark Addy. I liked his comedy work on the other side of the pond (Still Standing) and thought he did brilliantly here in a serious dramatic role. That was the good news. The bad news is that, to even have a hope of understanding what is happening here, you need to watch the two episodes, which, as far as I know, is a prohibited act under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

Phase Three:Dotting All Of The I's & Crossing All Of The T's

[druid333-2 · 9/10 · 8 April 2010]

It is now three years since The West Yorkshire Ripper has been (allegedly)caught & disposed from society,but things are no better for the citizens of West Yorkshire. Another disappearance of a young girl has been duly noted. This time,Sgt.Major,Maurice Johnson is on the case to find out just who is the (so called)ripper. This time,he's assisted (against his knowledge)by a sleazy lawyer,named John Piggott,as well as a "New Agey" clairvoyant,figure into it,as well as a wrongly accused,mildly retarded young man falsely accused of the original set of murders,and a mysterious young man just released from prison who is just referred to as B.J. Other elements (rampant police corruption,organized crime,political graft) figure into this to make this final chapter in a triptych a true nail biter,to keep you guessing until the very end. Anand Tucker (Hillary & Jackie,Shopgirl)directs from a screenplay written by Tony Grisoni,adapted from the novel by David Peace. The moody wide screen cinematography is by David Higgs,with precise editing by Trevor Waite. David Morrissey returns as Maurice Jobson,with Warren Clarke,as Bill Molloy,Lisa Howard as Judith Jobson,Sean Bean as John Dawson,and rounding out the rest of the cast (among others)is Chris Walker,Shawn Dooley,Jim Carter,Mark Addy,David Mayes & Robert Sheehan. Not rated by the MPAA,but contains outbursts of strong language,adult content,gruesome images,including brutal police interrogation scenes & violence,as well as much smoking of tobacco & marijuana & drinking of alcohol

Poorly written but well acted conclusion

[rusoviet · 7/10 · 10 September 2015]

...this series should have ended at the end of Red Riding - 1980 or have consumed the plot of 1983 into 1980. The only resolution I saw was the Reverend Haws - I will say the writer of 1980 made known the distorted morals of Rev. Haws as he assisted 'Elizabeth Hall' (Julia Ford) to have an abortion as well as hitting on her when he meets 'Peter Hunter' (Paddy Considine) for the 1st time.

Not to say clergy haven't, justifiably, been 'outted' as monsters - they have and should always be - bluntly there was no 'just desserts' for any of the big police officials -

This could have been done lightly but firmly for the finale - it wasn't - this was poorly concluded with a lot of loose loose ends.

The complete destruction of an excellent series.

[Rockwell_Cronenberg · 3/10 · 4 August 2011]

A great trilogy that just falls apart in the final act. In the first two films, we followed one protagonist on their mission to bring a killer to justice while also bringing down corruption within the Yorkshire police force. In 1983 however, the narrative fractures into three separate people, two of them having been involved from the start. We follow a member of the force who has for some reason just now decided after ten years of being corrupt and feeling bad about it that he's actually going to do something, a loser lawyer who basically gets yelled at until he tries to save the innocents that have been harmed by this seed of evil and a young male prostitute who has just had enough of all the wicked.

The film doesn't have enough time to fully resolve all of it's story lines, but it tries very hard to wrap it all up as efficiently as possible. I admire this in a way (with something like this I'd rather have everything resolved over a lot being left wide open), but as a result the entire thing feels very rushed and a lot of stuff comes seemingly out of nowhere to help tie it all up in a neat bow. Aside from the whole thing being very rushed and all over the place, the actual narrative structure of the film takes a bizarre and disjointed shift. The other two films had pretty straight-forward narratives, but this one tries to do so many different things to help explain it all.

There are flashbacks to the events of 1974, to help explain more about the corruption back in that day, but aside from the first time they never tell us when we're going back in time and sometimes it's honestly a little hard to figure out when we are. Along with that, we spend almost half of our time back in 1974, so the film doesn't even really feel like it should be titled 1983 because the focus doesn't seem to be much on it. They throw in some voice-over narration that feels very out of place as well, I guess to help with the lack of worthy screen time for one of our main players.

Don't get me wrong, the themes are still strong and I love the grit and darkness of this entire trilogy, but this one just falls apart on so many levels. There's a whole subplot with a mystic that feels very out of place for such a grounded series and in some scenes they turn these corrupt police officers into such overbearing caricatures that you can't even buy that they're just greedy, selfish men who abuse their power. When they stand in a circle and toast themselves by saying, "To the North! Where we do what we want!" you can't help but laugh at the ridiculousness of it.

The biggest surprise of it all is that, despite being very rushed and all over the place, the film drags along a lot. They should have had more time to properly explain everything, but even with that belief I was still losing interest in a lot of scenes. Overall, just a massive disappointment after two great films that came before it.

Unsatisfying conclusion albeit told with a good grim tone and performances

[bob the moo · 26 January 2014]

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.