Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1974 (2009 TV Movie) User Reviews (57)

The landscape of the soul

[miloc · 8/10 · 28 August 2010]

It is 1974. Our protagonist, young and hip, has shaggy hair, sideburns, and a slick leather jacket. Asked about his suit at his father's funeral: "Carnaby's," he admits. "Oh, ay," says one mourner, with a hint of added dismay.

He's been in the South, you see. American viewers with a limited perception of the UK may, at the beginning of Channel Four's remarkable Red Riding trilogy, have little understanding of what difference that makes. They will soon learn. "This is the North," says one of the terrifying policemen who populate this film's haunted Yorkshire. "Where we do what we want."

Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974 begins under lowering skies. A girl of ten has vanished. A young and callow crime reporter Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield) gets clued in by a conspiracy-minded colleague that the vanishing resembles two previous cases within a close range. Eager to make his mark, he senses opportunity, and in excitement at the idea that a serial murderer might be at work he blurts, "Let's keep our fingers crossed."

As the story deepens, however, so does the character. The grief of the victims' families needles him; he begins a relationship with one girl's heartsick mother (Rebecca Hall). Picking apart the story that emerges, he is drawn into the orbit of a wealthy developer (Sean Bean) with an unwholesome degree of influence in Yorkshire and its power structure. The perpetrator of the crimes is unquestionably psychopathic -- he stitches "angels' wings" into his victims' backs. Yet, in the film's most disturbing element, the police department itself functions as a psychopath, achieving its desires through brutalization, torture, and even possibly murder.

Caught in a conscienceless land, Dunford's own conscience, in reaction, grows, and what began as mere ambition transforms into a perhaps doomed lust for the truth. If this sounds like a conventional trope of the genre, it is -- plotwise much of what happens here is conventional. But Red Riding makes the narrative fresh by treating it not just as a story of crime and justice but as one of the soul, and its environs. When Dunford begs the mother to escape with him from the prevailing madness, he tells her, "In the South the sun shines." What he's telling her is that the sickness is inseparable from the place. Yorkshire is filmed (with gorgeous gloom) as a cloud-shrouded ruin, an economic disaster site in which financial power trumps morality. Starting out fresh-faced, vain, and cocky, Dunford will, by the end of his journey, be considerably the worse for wear. Looking at the landscape around him, we think, how could he not be?

Red Riding 1974 is not flawless -- some scenes feel repetitive and the bleakness can be overwhelming. But it compels you forward, it stays with you, and it genuinely rattles the spirit. This is not easy viewing, but in approaching the continuing saga, it promises hard- earned reward.

Absolutely stunning...

[Batesy89 · 8/10 · 5 March 2009]

I'll start by saying that I was expecting to like this before I watched it. Whether that had a bearing on my judgement, I can't really say.

'Nineteen Seventy-Four' has shades of 'Taxi Driver', the narrative framed not by the steam that rises from the streets of New York City but instead by the skies of Yorkshire. The comparison between the two movies really occurred to me most strongly at the end of the film and I think you'll see why.

The acting is spot on from everybody. I can't think of one performance that stands out for the wrong reasons. Andrew Garfield is excellent in the lead role and Sean Bean is on form.

The exploration of police corruption and the struggle for both revenge and justice resonate well beyond the ending of the film.

The cinematography is excellent and it is disappointing that films of this quality have to be shown on television because they won't find enough of an audience in the majority of British cinemas.

Everyone has demons...

[Simon_Says_Movies · 6/10 · 16 March 2010]

Don't let the 1974 fool you, this year merely indicates the time period in which this British crime drama is set. The first film of a trilogy, 1974 sets up the desolate Yorkshire town which has again been struck with the grizzly and brutal murder of a young girl. This makes her merely an entry in string of disappearances over the previous decade. Despite atmosphere thick enough to ski upon, this movie fails to offer much compelling and is a tough slog not only due to its grimy nature but also its convoluted narrative.

What begin with an investigation into a young girls disappearance, gives way to a murder, then to police corruption and bureaucratic cover-ups. Dropped squarely in the center is amateur journalist Eddie Dunford (Andre Garfield) whose combination of determination and coyness take him down a dark road. I will not even delve into the plot more than I have, as not only is it too complex to adequately lay out, but I am still trying to sort it all out myself.

While the performances are uniformly good, the characters are thoroughly unlikeable. Even our protagonist Eddie has a smarmy quality to him that makes it difficult for a real connection to be achieved. This is so with much of Red Riding: 1974, we are kept at arms length; never able to engage with any of the players nor the grief and depression the town is experiencing. Such is amplified further by the engrained ugliness at every corner which inhibits any discernible depth; everyone has demons, everything is wrong and nobody is happy. Thus, the instances of violence are muted by the grimness by which it is surrounded.

If you are really hankering for a dark tragic crime film starring Andrew Garfield, check out Boy-A; a supremely better and more resonant film. The highlight of the film for me was seeing Sean Bean again. His presence in films is an iota of what it should be and he gives one of the films best performances. Not having yet seen the following two instalments of this series I can not say with confidence this film will not be elevated when viewed in context. At this point, what I can say with confidence is Red Riding: 1974 was not an enjoyable experience. Perhaps, then, it was a success in its own right.

Read all my reviews simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com

Strong on atmosphere and tone but the story-telling and characters feel rushed and lose impact as a result

[bob the moo · 26 January 2014]

The Red Riding films have been sitting recorded waiting for me to watch them for quite some time. I set the recorder at the time for them because of the praise they received and the number of well-known names in there, other than this I didn't know too much and didn't know the books they are based off. The plot sees a young journalist returning to northern England and picking up a story about a murdered girl who was found with swan wings sewn onto her back. The police seem to be content with the usual suspects but when he starts digging deeper he finds a world of police corruption and cronyisms, putting him in danger.

When I watched this film I tried to put the hype and critical acclaim out of my mind and just come to it as I found it. As such I was not overly impressed by it but did enjoy it for the grimness that it does well. The film does have an engaging sense of foreboding and toughness that suits the material and it delivers this aspect of it very well in terms of tone, locations, costumes and general feel. However, this is ultimately a story, not just atmosphere, and I was surprised that the film didn't deliver on this particularly well. I've never read the books but I do presume they are longer than this 90 minute film represents and I presume this because it seems like a lot is rammed in here and nothing really has much time to develop or grow before we're onto the next thing. This reduced the impact of the story for me because it did feel like I was being rushed through it rather than being allowed to move around within it. It isn't helped by it more or less going where you think it will go almost by virtue of how quickly it hands you everything, thus focusing on mind on certain characters and scenarios rather than allowing the bigger world to be a thing.

The cast do well even though so many of them seem to have a few minutes each. Garfield is solid in the lead even if he seems to spent a lot of the time just being beaten. Hall works well next to him but outside of these two the cast seem too deep in faces and not deep enough in screen time for them. So people like Marsan, Mercer, Bean, Mullan etc really don't feel like they are well used even if they are good in their moments. Everyone has a good accent but it is worth saying that to those not familiar with it, it may be difficult to always pick up what is being said – this is not just down to the thickness of the accents but the sound engineering here has lots of background noise and, for the sake of atmosphere I guess, seems to have lots of mumbling.

This first film has enough good about it for me to check out the second in the trilogy, but I hope it does better with the actual story telling part. In this case atmosphere and time/place was very well done but the story and characters felt rushed and the impact of the tale was lessened due to this, which is a shame.

No surprises but good

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 6/10 · 22 August 2011]

I must have missed something while watching "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974" because I did not see a spectacular film as some tend to say about it. What I saw was a well made film but nothing so outstanding about a journalist trying to stop a serial killer who murdered little girls back in 1974.

Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield) is a persistent yet very naive journalist trying to solve the case behind the disappearance of some girls from the surroundings. The more he goes with the story he'll find more and more trouble, to the point of having a strange tendency of getting punched by corrupt cops who don't want him near of the people who might know what's the truth behind the deaths. Haven't we seen that before?

The film wasn't strong enough to make me feel deeply interested at certain parts (the course of Eddie's investigations are quite boring, so in order to lift things higher the director gives us lots of sex scenes, a little bit pointless but interesting to see, specially because Garfield is in all of that). It's very well made, well acted specially by Garfield and Sean Bean, who plays a powerful businessman. The historical reconstruction, art direction and costumes (the corny pants Andrew wears are priceless) are really good. But I'm a little saturated of plots like that, very surpriseless and very obvious.

So, I made my point of what works in this piece. If you think you should see it go forward. It's up to you. Totally recommendable for fans of Garfield, Bean, Eddie Marsan, Peter Mullan, David Morrissey and others. 6/10

not everyone's cup of tea!!

[buddybhupender · 6/10 · 22 January 2012]

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.

Phase One:The Dye Is Cast

[druid333-2 · 10/10 · 30 March 2010]

The year is 1974. Great Britain has pretty much (all but) cast off the whole mellow,groovy hippie glow of the late 1960's (and is pretty much unaware of the punk movement that is to envelope "merrie old England" within the next couple of years),unemployment is rampant & most folk are listening to the likes of Mott The Hoople,T-Rex,David Bowie,etc. A pedophile murderer,that is being called the Yorkshire Slasher has been terrorizing the citizens of Yorkshire for the past five years,and it's up to newby journalist,Eddie Dunford to get the facts on the who,what,when,where & especially the why on why young schoolgirls are being murdered. What he gets in the interim of uncovering information is far more than what he expected:police corruption,political graft (with deep ties to organized crime),and other nastiness. 'Red Riding 1974' (or as it is better known in the United Kingdom as 'Red Riding:In The Year Of Our Lord 1974')is the first part of a three part series,which itself is a powder keg of a "who dunnit" that will keep you on the edge of your seat guessing what happens next (suggestion:hit the mens or ladies room before the film starts & avoid that jumbo soft drink,so that you won't have to miss out on anything,because you had to make a dash for the 'loo'). Julian Jarrold,who directed the superb 'Brideshead Revisited' & 'Becomming Jane',directs a very well paced thriller from a screenplay by Tony Grisoni,adapted from the celebrated novel by David Peace. Rob Hardy's,oh so fine cinematography goes for both gloss & grit, while Andrew Hulme's razor tight editing keeps the pace (and pulse)going. Andrew Gardfield plays journalist Eddie Dunford (who looks like he just stepped down from his other gig singing for Roxy Music),a young man who descends down a dark labyrinth where there is no escape. The rest of the cast is rounded out by the likes of David Morrissey, Warren Clarke,Jennifer Hennessy,Rachael Jane Allen,and others. I await the other two chapters with anticipation. Not rated by the MPAA,this film contains pervasive strong language,strong sexual content,nudity,violence,some of which is quite brutal & bloody,some rather lurid photographs that depict the Yorkshire ripper's dirty work on display,and much smoking & drinking of alcohol. Leave the little ones home for this one.

A binge watching of RED RIDING TRILOGY - Part One 1974

[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).

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.

Noir... unrelenting TV Noir.

[Screen-7 · 10/10 · 18 October 2010]

In the DVD extras on this series, the director is reluctant to describe this series as "noir" but that's exactly how I'd describe it. It's not just average noir, it's inky black.

If you like the noir genre, then rent this series right away. No need to even bother reading the reviews! This is spectacularly good noir.

If you don't like noir, then stay clear of this series... you'll hate them.

If you're new or ambivalent to the noir genre -- be warned that you won't be rewarded with even the dust of a warm fuzzy. But you will be rewarded with fantastic writing, layered story telling, great acting, quality cinematography, compelling characters and, simply, some of the best TV I've ever seen.

Probably the only caveat are the Yorkshire accents which are heavy. I enjoy accents and usually have no trouble understanding them but it's not just the accents ... it's the grammar and vocabulary too. But, if you're fine with subtitles, then it's no problem.

An absorbing film noir

[kluseba · 7/10 · 6 November 2010]

This is the first part of a trilogy about a serial murderer that kidnaps, rapes and kills little girls. As a young and emotional rookie journalist does his own investigations concerning the most recent and third murder, local police officers, entrepreneurs and even his own boss try do everything to hide a mysterious secret surrounding the murders. No one is innocent in this circle of corruption, power and abuse.

The first part of this trilogy is a very atmospheric film noir. It is a slow paced investigation that takes place in a rainy, grey and desperate entourage and where the main character discovers the evil that men do. While the beginning of the movie is a little bit boring and doesn't explain enough the first murders of the possible serial killer, the film gets more profound, intense and even shocking towards the ending and you really get absorbed by a dark and destructive atmosphere during the last thirty minutes of this movie that makes you watch the follow-up immediately.

The story is complex and many characters are introduced in the frustrating beginning but towards the end of the movie, you get used to all those characters and are able to create connections between them and that helps you to understand and appreciate the movie more and more. The actors are doing a quite well and authentic job and not only because of the very particular accent and entourage. Andrew Garfield plays a solid role as a young, naive and emotional journalist that does many mistakes during his quest for the truth. Rebecca Hall is doing a great job and plays the role of a disturbed and mysterious femme fatale with a tragic destiny. Sean Benn does an incredible job by playing the role of a rich, cold and dangerous businessman.

The best part of the movie is its very brutal and yet twisted ending that is filmed in a very intense way. The director did a great overall job in this movie and created some very intense footages that add a lot to the atmosphere of the movie. The way he cuts the final scenes and also the dream or hallucination sequences is very eerie and special. Concerning the end of the movie, I would like to give you the advice to check out the three deleted scenes on the DVD that add a special something to the atmosphere of the movie and to its end. I don't understand why those scenes have been deleted because they are all very strong and not filler material.

I've mentioned a lot of positive points and you might ask yourself why I didn't give eight or even nine stars to the movie. That's because of the slow paced beginning, the cliché that everything and everybody is corrupted, evil and brutal and that some events during this movie are too predictable because of that. The movie is intense and absorbing but up to the last thirty minutes there isn't much tension. There is also especially one scene that I found strange, as the young journalist gives the life's work of his deceased partner and friend to a young police officer. This scene has simply a lack of logic in my opinion and doesn't fit with the behaviour of the journalist that did everything on his own without caring about laws or instructions and that had some very bad experiences with the police.

But all in all, this is a very absorbing and authentic film noir with an excellent ending that makes me look forward to watch the follow-up quickly. If you like this genre, this movie is a most-have and highlight for you and if you like ordinary movies about criminal investigations you may get disturbed by the dark and brutal ending of the movie that distinguishes this film from the ordinary ones. No matter in which category you fit, I would highly recommend you this film and encourage you to not give up during the overlong introduction because the second part of the movie is more than worth the wait.

Get depressed for no real reason at all

[Elain-ee · 5/10 · 1 April 2010]

I didn't pick this film up expecting a laugh-riot but having heard a lot about the bungled Yorkshire Ripper investigation, I fully expected an intelligent and insightful work from "1974". Yet coming away from this movie I feel even more confused than I did before I began. There was too little background about the case, the era and the characters given, as if the directors assumed that their audience had read the book and/or were living in Yorkshire during the 70s. Sadly, neither is true in my case and if the makers wouldn't have assumed as much they could have added a lot of meat to this story while keeping a broad range of viewers interested. The star-crossed lovers subplot (or was it the main plot??) was irritatingly predictable, so much so that I was shouting at the screen for the last half of the movie, to the chagrin of my neighbours. And most of the characters came across as shallow and seemed to drift through the film in a timeless, listless haze of futility.

Having said that one of the big pros was watching Sean Bean, who was very easy on the eyes and acting his heart out. "1974" is also very sleek, although the beautifully-shot landscape is so depressing that you sometimes wonder why they made the effort.

In conclusion, I will watch next movie in the hopes that it will shed more light on the Yorkshire Ripper case but I have to admit this was not a great start.

Red Riding 1974: get to know the the new spider-man

[Alexander666DeLarge · 8/10 · 23 August 2010]

I bought the Red Riding Trilogy on DVD last week. I've reading up on all the praise and the kind of story it portrays.

If you like stories that has police Corruption, with serial killers on the side and the Press interwoven in three movies, than this is a nice way to pass the time.

I am not English, so the back stories, truth or fiction, i was not that familiar with. The thing i did know, was the stellar cast that's in it. As a movie buff, its nice to see the cream of the crop of English actors.Sean Bean makes the effort for the most of the time worth seeing. But there are more. Class Actor Warren Clarke gives a short but intense moment as the chief of police. And another copper called Bob Craven, here played by Sean Harris. I saw this guy in several movies like Harry Brown and 24 hour party people, and i can tell you he scares the hell out of me (if you get a change to get the DVD, watch the making of 1980, you'll get the picture).

But the man who must lead you through this story of corruption and missing children is Eddie Dunford, played by Andrew Garfield. He is cocky, thorough reporter, who has a weakness for the ladies. He even starts a romantic relationship with one of the victims mother's (Rebecca Hall. I thought Garfield did a great acting job, just as he did in 2007s Boy A. Here he also gets reunited another actor from that movie, Peter Mullan.

I'm happy that the film doesn't use any archive footage of the real murders. It stands as mostly a fictional story thats very well shot. The look is very authentic and the Smokey atmosphere helps a lot.

The only criticism for me is, you feel its made for television. I get the point that it was meant for cable release in the UK, therefore i am easy on the score, because for a TV production, this is topnotch.

I yet have to see 1983, but i already like the way 1980 has so much hints to 1974, that it really does justice as a Trilogy and as individual films.

Final Judgement 8 out of 10

It's Grim Up North

[Rathko · 7/10 · 17 September 2010]

'1974' has a lot in its favor. The performances, production design, and cinematography are excellent. The shortfall is in the screenplay. Pierce's book is so rooted in the urban landscape of West Yorkshire that the back streets of Leeds become another, if not the most important, character in the story. The Leeds of '1974' is not supposed to be realistic, but an almost Dante-esquire vision of absolute power running amok where the police are more dangerous than the psychopaths and nobody is to be trusted. It's a vision of concrete tower blocks and crumbling Victorian architecture. The film, however, rarely depicts Leeds as an urban metropolis, favoring rural isolation instead. It's a curious decision, and denies the film much of its potential visual power.

Pierce's books make McCarthy's 'The Road' seem like light and fluffy beach reading. For all the movie's 'It's Grim Up North' doom and gloom, it's nowhere near as unrelenting as the book. Though Tony Grisoni makes an admirable effort, and presents a society of rampant corruption, at no point do we really feel the Orwellian weight of it all. In the books, it's clear that the horror is simply the inescapable reality of the world. In the film, you get the impression that Eddie could just get in his car at any moment and leave it all behind.

I guess I was in the mood for uncompromising nihilism and '1974' failed to deliver. Not a bad movie by any stretch, but fails to achieve its potential.

An utterly magnificent movie, but stupid as hell

[noisebox666 · 4/10 · 28 November 2010]

OK, this is noir, for sure. But it also shines for its shallowness and emptiness.

The movie opens with what promises a complex investigation about the murders of several girls, mixed with some political corruption.

But here is the catch, because it doesn't go anywhere further. The main character, Eddie Dunford, doesn't have a clue about anything. Neither about the case, neither how to proceed, neither about the basis of his job as a journalist. (though he claims and boasts a lot to be one)

The acting is well performed, though it's always difficult to say so when characters and situations are incoherent.

I admit the cinematography is perfect, in the mood of old 70's thrillers, which can lure many into considering it makes a good film, just because it looks smart.

Nevertheless, the scenario suffers from weakness and evasiveness. The main character is stupid and his main achievement would be to receive the result of one life's work and researches of his dead and more gifted friend, then give it to a cop.

So here is another movie with a beautiful photography, a static scenario, a stubborn and stupid character, whose pointless actions lead to absurd and nonsensical situations I found hard to believe. The famous "willing suspension of disbelief" failed to work here as far as I'm concerned.

I think I miss Chinatown, and will need to watch it soon after this mess. All the more so it looked promising.

Far superior to most films about catching serial killers

[insomnia · 23 June 2010]

The "Red Riding Trilogy" (based on the novels by David Peace), originally screened on British TV last year. The three films clock in at just short of five hours. I found out about this trilogy of films after reading a review in The New Yorker magazine, though I can't remember whether it was David Denby or Anthony Lane who wrote about "Red Riding Trilogy", but whoever it was, gave the films a very favourable review. So good, that I wanted to see the films for myself because it's not often that either David Denby or Anthony Lane who gave this film such fulsome praise. The first film in the trilogy deals with a series of child murders and one journalist's attempts to find out who is responsible for these atrocities. The second film is set against the backdrop of the efforts of the police to catch the notorious Yorkshire Ripper, while the final film revisits what happened in the first film. Woven into this apparently simple plot-line, is a back-story about corruption in the West Yorkshire police, and its ties to organized crime. Each film is labyrinthine in their complexities, and you have to pay close attention, otherwise what is revealed in the first film, won't make much sense in the second and third films. The acting is first class, though the direction in the second film is pedestrian compared to the other two films. My only gripe is the sound quality especially in the first film, as if the actors are talking with mouths stuffed with cotton wool. Otherwise, the "Red Riding Trilogy" is a gem, and deserves a viewing.

Finally a real Anti-hero

[A_Different_Drummer · 7/10 · 30 December 2013]

When Clint Eastwood's first Italian Western made news in the 60s, the critics were falling over themselves to call the character an "anti-hero," but in truth it was not. In that film, the fact that the main character did not have a name, and, moreover, was a bounty hunter by trade who just happened to set things right along the way, all this was persuasive evidence, to some, that this was an anti-hero. But no, Eastwood's character was simply someone with no name and an unpopular job. Here, ladies and gents, we have the real thing. Garfield's completely unlikable (some would say stupid, some would say annoying) character writ large against the backdrop of one of the most uncomfortable parts of the UK, is the real deal. The astonishing thing about this film is that, if you make it to the end, you will wonder why you did, since there is no little about it that is entertaining by traditional standards. Here is a true anti-hero because, while he makes the noise of a hero, he never quite gets anything right, except maybe the ending, and even that is debatable. Garfield is good. Rebecca Hall is great. Sean Bean plays himself.

It's grim up North...

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 16 January 2011]

I missed this trilogy when it was first shown on TV, heard great things about it, and finally caught up with it when they repeated it recently.

A mystery about a series of child abductions eventually turns out to be more about corruption in the Yorkshire police than anything else, but boy what a production! This has to be one of the darkest, most downbeat slices of television I've witnessed, and yet it's so well made, so compelling that you can't stop watching.

Garfield's cocky journo wasn't my favourite of the series leads - I felt no sympathy for him - but what a supporting cast! Sean Bean headlines as the big name, but it's a shock to see friendly favourites like Warren Clarke playing complete bastards.

The story meanders with one too many sub-plots to easily follow, but things gradually become clearer as the trilogy progresses. More than anything I'm reminded of Scorcese's TAXI DRIVER as a similar story of one man's disintegration...

First part of a trilogy is a masterpiece both on its own terms and as part of a bigger story

[dbborroughs · 9/10 · 5 June 2010]

The plot of the film concerns a newspaper reporter who begins to notice that there are a number of children turning up dead in ways that should connect their deaths. As he begins to dig deeper into the film he finds that corruption runs deep with in the police force and government. Anyone who questions what is going on meets with some form of nastiness for a variety of reasons, favoritism, cronyism, cover up and joy.The reasons are limitless so take your pick Its a bleak look at society and the sort of thing best described as Modern Film Noir (actually I should add the qualifier of good or great modern Noir since there are so many bad attempts). Its compulsively watchable and my attempt to watch a few minutes to see if it was worth going to see the film at the IFC center resulted in my watching the film all the way to the haunting ending.

As stand alone film its a masterpiece. Its a dark little tale thats a cynical as they come. The world black and the fact that good men (the police) refuse to do the right thing makes is darker (The main character is spurred on to continue his inquiry because of that statement). Its possibly one of the best films for this year, I'll have to think about it since how I feel about the film has been altered by seeing the second film. (Though certainly the film is perfectly fine on its own) Until the next film you don't see how it really ties into the Yorkshire Ripper case though it does clearly show the problems with the Yorkshire police department as the killings were just starting (or at least starting t be recognized).

Even when you don't know what's going on (which is very frequently) you can tell that it's something that could be very interesting and entertaining.

[Hellmant · 7/10 · 23 February 2011]

'RED RIDING': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Three part UK TV adaptation of author David Peace's quartet of books published from 1999 to 2002. The stories center around serial murders, missing children and most prominently police corruption. They feature several recurring characters which play minor supporting parts in some chapters and much bigger and more developed roles in others. The cast features the likes of Andrew Garfield, David Morrissey, Paddy Considine, Mark Addy, Sean Bean, Rebecca Hall and many others. The films were written by Tony Grisoni and directed by Julian Jarrold, James Marsh and Anand Tucker (each directing an individual chapter). They were released on UK television in March 2009 and theatrically in the US in February of 2010.

The films are each titled 'RED RIDING: IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD...' and the year that each chapter is set in (1974, 1980 and 1983, they exclude the second book set in 1977). The first film stars Garfield as an arrogant reporter, named Eddie Dunford, who takes on an assignment for the Yorkshire Post investigating the disappearance of missing girls. He butts heads with a local businessman, named John Dawson (Bean), as well as the dirty police Dawson's involved with. He escalates his investigation to dangerous levels that eventually put his life as well as others close to him in danger. The second chapter centers around a police officer, named Peter Hunter (Considine), assigned to head up the Yorkshire Ripper murders investigation. Flashbacks are drawn to the first film, which help further explain it as well as this installment, and the story again all revolves around corrupt officers of the law which Hunter of course comes into conflict with. The final episode revolves around a supporting player from the first two films named Maurice Jobson (Morrissey), a corrupt police officer who has to deal greatly with his conscience, in this chapter, for his involvement in the crimes from previous episodes. It also focuses on a naive public solicitor (Addy) who comes to the defense of a wrongfully convicted mentally handicap young man (from previous story-lines).

The films jump around a lot from present day to flashbacks without explanation, which make them very hard to differentiate (at least at first). They also move between several different story-lines rapidly and from key characters to others frequently without taking the time to allow the viewer to adjust. Besides these flaws the audio is horrible, making a large amount of dialogue very hard to comprehend, and the pacing is sometimes almost non existent. As you can tell the films are far from perfect and often leave the viewer lost, bored (as a result) and aggravated. Despite this they are beautifully shot, compelling at times and involving to a certain extent. They'll leave many desiring repeat viewings (multiple I'm sure, just to fully understand them) which is a compliment, even though they brought on the urge for this desire to begin with. Even when you don't know what's going on (which is very frequently) you can tell that it's something that could be very interesting and entertaining. There's a lot of potential here for some great entertainment but it's obviously poorly handled on so many different levels. A truly great missed opportunity.

Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS7EjRs-tOE

Exciting British corruption drama

[Dr_Kruger · 9/10 · 5 March 2009]

I've been looking forward to this trilogy for a while and so far it doesn't disappoint. Director Julian Jarrold has come a long way since 'Childrens Ward'! Touching Evil and Cracker are more familiar territory although this is stunningly directed with the style and panache of 'Zodiac' but with a far more interesting story, characters and actors. Yes, the performances from Andrew Garfield and co were terrific. I'm already looking forward to the following film to see how the corrupt coppers move on from this dirty episode and also to see Considine in action in a meaty role once again.

It's one of those films where everything makes sense at the end. Good stuff

Compelling story, but told with flaws

[Catocala · 6/10 · 12 April 2022]

I was doubting between a 6 or 7, because it is a solid movie with pretty good acting. However, the complex story of corruption it tries to tell, is told a bit too disorderly to be easily followed at times.

Without spoilers: this movie has a grim atmosphere about conspiracy and corruption among people in a position of power. Andrew Garfield plays a reporter who tries to uncover some of the awefulness, but he has his own demons, which the movie leaves unexplored almost entirely. Why bring that up then? Same goes for some "love" scenes, which seemed forced/irrelevant to the plot, or at the very least redundant. Another let down was that everybody "bad" had zero redeeming qualities, making them kind of caricaturistic.

I think the movie was successful in creating a captivating vibe, but it had quite a few plotholes/unanswered questions which together with the chaotic disquisition failed to bring it to a good enough movie to want to recommend it to others unless they have nothing better to watch.

"Stupid...nihilistic...nude..."

[steven-222 · 3/10 · 16 June 2011]

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.)

Great Film making not to miss

[jmaggot · 10/10 · 26 February 2010]

Watched Red Riding 1974 last night, and as is the case for truly exceptional film, became completely absorbed in the picture. Afterwards needed to spend the next hour processing what I have experienced. Then watched the next installment. Again another great example of exceptional film. As a former resident of the City of Chicago, it is incredibly difficult to explain a culture of total corruption that still exists there and as well in the film. If you have not lived in this environment you either don't believe it or can't fathom that it can exist on such a wide scope. Usually, corruption of this kind is set in another time or place that is a very safe distance from where we are today. Something is really really really wrong and almost everyone in the film is compliant in allowing this darkness to persist. It did not start out this way and most of the corruption does not involve the taking of life, but once you create a system such as this, it will. And the longer the system runs, the more tragic the loss of human life. What would you do in this situation? Check out Operation Graylord, Operation Silvershovel,etc.

Atmospheric mystery

[user-35583 · 7/10 · 4 August 2021]

The film is shot in dingy muted colors to bring forward the working class feel of Yorkshire in the 70's. Solid cast and acting throughout, but the script skims the surface in trying to bring together the story of 3 grisly murders of young girls that may be the work of one man. Scenes are stitched together in a way that makes it a bit challenging to follow along if you're not paying attention. Corruption at every turn leads our protagonist from one ugly encounter to another.

E its grim up North

[thetreacleman · 5/10 · 12 March 2009]

The first thirty minutes of this was promising, as gripping as the first Prime Suspect but after a while plausibility began to evaporate in the smoke and gloom of this hellish Yorkshire. It was grim and smoky in the bars. it was grim and smoky everywhere, with more bent coppers than you could shake a leg at. Given that there were so much corruption and that our journalist hero seemed so savvy, how was it possible that he would simply hand over his friend"s "lifes-work" to a "good" Copper casually encountered at the scene of the aforementioned friends suspicious demise.

And then surprise surprise the good copper turns out to be yet another rotten apple. Since all the police were grim and ugly and uncouth and psychotic. And then the clichés began to roll in like the mist off Ilkley Moor. As our hero heads toward marytrdom he glimpses his dead girlfriend, just like Mel does in Braveheart or Russell likewise in Gladiator. It sugars the pill of a downbeat ending. And why was the production design recreating the light-bulb decorations from Eyes Wide Shut in Sean Beans glitter Palace.

The Second Installment concerning the Ripper gets even sillier.