Page 1 of 1

The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:35 pm
by John-Locke
Image

UKers have probably seen this advertised on C4 but I don't know if any of you have been watching.

The third and final film was on tonight and it all wrapped up brilliantly, I wasn't really sure I understood everything until the third part.

This is seriously dark, gritty, noirish Northern crime investigation at it's best, it gets better with each installment so if you decide to give it a go don't give up after the slightly weak first installment.

Info & Quotes:

Red Riding is a trilogy of movies based on a quartet of novels by David Peace.

The three films - titled Nineteen Seventy-Four, Nineteen Eighty and Nineteen Eighty-Three were adapted for the screen by Tony Grisoni (Tideland and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas).

Each film in the Red Riding trilogy has a different director, with the first installment helmed by Julian Jarrold (director of the Anne Hathaway starrer Becoming Jane); James Marsh (the Oscar winning Man On Wire) called the shots on the second and the third film was directed by Anand Tucker (Steve Martin’s Shopgirl).

The films appear to have the same texture of the great 1970’s films such as All The Presidents Men and Serpico, with thick plot and layered performances from the first rate British cast that includes Sean Bean, Paddy Considine and David Morrissey.

While based on actual events, the author of the books says that the stories are “fiction torn out of the facts.”

1974, Yorkshire - a time of paranoia, mistrust and institutionalised police corruption. Rookie journalist Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield) is determined to search for the truth in an increasingly complex maze of lies and deceit that characterises a police investigation into a series of child abductions.

In the second episode, directed by Marsh and set in 1980, The “Ripper” has tyrannised Yorkshire for six long years, and with the local police failing to make any progress, the Home Office sends in Manchester officer Peter Hunter (Considine) to review the investigation. Having previously made enemies in the Yorkshire force while investigating a shooting incident in 1974, Hunter finds himself increasingly isolated when his version of events challenges their official line on the “Ripper”.

In the final instalment, directed by Tucker and set in 1983, another young girl has disappeared and Detective Chief Superintendent Maurice Jobson (Morrissey) recognises some alarming similarities to the abductions in 1974, forcing him to come to terms with the fact that he may have helped convict the wrong man. When local solicitor John Piggott (Addy) is persuaded to fight this miscarriage of justice he finds himself slowly uncovering a catalogue of cover ups.


Seriously guys and gals, buy the DVD's (when they come out) or watch them on the Channel 4 Site (Windows PC only) or find them elsewhere on the net. I was tempted to put this in Movie Discussion as they really are Films not TV but as they all intertwine so much I decided to put them in Coaxial.

Also the four books that these are based on are meant to be even better, anyone read the books?

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:43 pm
by TonyWilson
Reading the second book, Nineteen Seventy Seven, I posted about it in the book forum earlier today. I've not seen all the films yet, just the majority of the first as I need to finish the books , so probably by the end of next week I'll blaze through all 3 films.
So far the books are brilliant, and Seventy Four is even darker and harsher than the film.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:56 pm
by John-Locke
Pffft... Reading? Funk dat.

I plan on reading the books at some point actually.

I think they've held back certain things from the first book for the last film unless they were written like that. There is certainly a lot of screen time spent in that year. I'm also guessing that 1980 had a lot of the 1977 book in it.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:37 pm
by Maui
Looks quite captivating - I think I'll probably read the books first.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:17 am
by instant_karma
For some reason, I only became aware of these as the 3rd one was being advertised, but they look good, so I'll be checking them out.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:42 am
by Brit Pop
I've only seen the first one, but its bloody good... got some great actors doing some good work in as well.

And its good to see Andy Murray taking a break from tennis to try his hand at acting.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:40 am
by TonyWilson
Got all three of these to watch tonight, though I may want to be trepanned after 6 hours of murder, hate and lies.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:52 pm
by John-Locke
You are just going to end up really annoyed that it's nowhere near as good as the books.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:30 am
by Ribbons
A trailer for (I think) all three of the films just showed up on Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/redriding/

And, for shits an' giggles, here's a link to Nineteen Seventy-Four, a thread in our very own Zone about the first(?) book in the series: http://zone.aintitcool.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=68851

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:44 am
by papalazeru
I've got the damned series and I STILL haven't watched it.

Bad me.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:58 pm
by Ribbons
I just watched 1974 and I thought it was good, although slightly confusing. First of all I have to say that, as a Yank, it took me like twenty minutes of getting used to the thick Northern accents before I could understand what anybody was saying. The plot was a bit cliched (reporter becomes a detective, while investigating a murder stumbles upon a giant, citywide conspiracy), but it had some interesting twists thrown in. I liked that the character seemed reluctant to get drawn into that whole world even after he suspected what was going on, and really just wanted to get out of there with his 'girlfriend' and head back south. Sean Bean was magnetic in the "star role" of bigshot landowner John Dawson, and Andrew Garfield was suitably intense, although for a seemingly normal guy, what his character did at the end seemed a little forced (I got the sense that his dad used to beat the crap out of him, so maybe that's what made him turn on Dawson so quickly).

The one thing that I don't understand is why the cops gave Dunford a loaded gun. I guess they didn't like Dawson either and wanted him out of the way, but that plan sort of backfired on them as well. Maybe it's something that's elaborated on in the sequels, but it seemed to come out of nowhere. Anyway I thought it was really well-shot, dark, atmospheric. I'm in for the rest of the trilogy.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:37 am
by magicmonkey
Ribbons wrote:I just watched 1974 and I thought it was good, although slightly confusing. First of all I have to say that, as a Yank, it took me like twenty minutes of getting used to the thick Northern accents before I could understand what anybody was saying. The plot was a bit cliched (reporter becomes a detective, while investigating a murder stumbles upon a giant, citywide conspiracy), but it had some interesting twists thrown in. I liked that the character seemed reluctant to get drawn into that whole world even after he suspected what was going on, and really just wanted to get out of there with his 'girlfriend' and head back south. Sean Bean was magnetic in the "star role" of bigshot landowner John Dawson, and Andrew Garfield was suitably intense, although for a seemingly normal guy, what his character did at the end seemed a little forced (I got the sense that his dad used to beat the crap out of him, so maybe that's what made him turn on Dawson so quickly).

The one thing that I don't understand is why the cops gave Dunford a loaded gun. I guess they didn't like Dawson either and wanted him out of the way, but that plan sort of backfired on them as well. Maybe it's something that's elaborated on in the sequels, but it seemed to come out of nowhere. Anyway I thought it was really well-shot, dark, atmospheric. I'm in for the rest of the trilogy.


Totally agree, the first one was pretty contrived and made about as much sense as an italian giallo. It looked really nice tho, am really rooting now for the "This is England" tv series, starting tonight I believe, which shall make a refreshing change to all that RR stylism.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:19 pm
by VegasRon
Watched all three yesterday, very good set of movies. Very dark(no, seriously) with a pretty satisfying ending. They also, IMO, get progressively better.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:05 am
by tapehead
Just watched the first one - it is a bit vague and light on exposition for anyone who watches much crime drama, and the Northern Accents a little thick, but I was content to let the story's details get drawn out slowly. Might have been better with more local colour (although the trannie named Ziggy was a nice touch, and the Northern Soul tracks heard in bars and pubs seem pretty on the ball), but I'm definitely in for the other two.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:56 pm
by Ribbons
I just watched 1980 tonight and, although I liked 1974 well enough, thought this one was a big improvement. Even though almost all the characters are new (except for BJ/"Ziggy" and a couple crooked cops), a theme starts to develop that ties both stories together. And Considine is great as the detective sent to investigate claims of corruption in the West Yorkshire police force. There are red herrings galore, and one of the things you have to get used to when you're watching these movies is that they don't give you a lot of information right away that everybody IN the story already knows and takes for granted, but once things come together, they come together beautifully. I can't wait to watch the third.

Also, there was a nice shot about halfway through the film of Considine the mirrors the opening shot of Andrew Garfield in 1974. Obviously different directors are going to bring their own styles to the film, so it's not like visual continuity is a must, but I appreciated the nod.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:28 am
by Ribbons
The name "1983" is almost a misnomer, since a good third or so of the final film takes place in 1974. However, it is quite good. Like the other two there are some spontaneous bursts of violence throughout, and it's super-stylish, visually. Although you can more or less see where it's going, I think they waited a bit too long to wrap everything up, and once they do it kind of just ends. But the story itself is pretty engrossing and Mark Addy and David Morrissey are both strong leads. It was also pretty cool to see some of the little-used bit players in the previous installments have bigger roles this time around. I still think I liked the second film the best (1980), but this one was pretty good too and it's a great series overall.

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:42 am
by roland414
Thanks for the amazing post

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy *Must See*

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:00 am
by tapehead
ZIggy/Bj is him from Misfits!