Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Console best movie i've ever seen.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

bob the moo The second part of the trilogy takes a similar approach to the first film in that it sets us up with a serial killer (this time the Yorkshire Ripper) but really is more interested in the crimes going on behind the scenes with the police and politicians. In this case I think I enjoyed the film more than the first one because I was aware of this and, although I was interested in the hunt for the Ripper, I knew to almost try to focus away from it. This is a strange feeling and it is one that I still think I struggle with on this second film – that basically the main text of the film is actually subtext and vice versa. This film makes this particularly true since the resolution of the Ripper story barely makes a ripple whereas the film ends with an almighty splash that is sure to bring me back for the final film.This almighty splash is all the more important because for the most part the film moves quite slowly and every that occurs seems to be suggested between the words. This makes for a good tense atmosphere even if it doesn't exactly get the pulse racing. This slow burn is quite satisfying though and, like I said, with my understanding of the direction more in place, I found it more engaging. This isn't to say it is perfect though and I still am a little confused by the universal acclaim for this film and the 10 out of 10 gushing that many here on IMDb have delivered. The slow delivery adds to the feeling of a deep, complex tale which to be honest the material here doesn't fully support. Unlike the first film at least the pacing is better and I didn't feel like we were in a race but rather than it played out as it should, although having never read the books I am not sure if this came at a cost to the source material.The heavyweight cast certainly helps the film and they fit the serious tone of foreboding pretty well. I'm sure Considine has been bad at some point but not in my memory and certainly not here; he is convincing in his underplaying and he makes for an engaging lead. Morrissey, Carter, Harris, Pitts and others all fill out the cast really well, again with performances that fit the tone and pace of the film well. If there is a fault it is that they are all very uniform in their characters and there is perhaps too much consistency in the "grim op norf" performances, but still.1980 improves on the first film, partly by virtue of being better paced but also partly by the viewer (me) now having the context as to what the film is really about rather than what the plot summary suggests. It is grim and engaging even if it isn't the most thrilling and it ends with a very satisfying conclusion that will bring me back for the final film.

Rodrigo Amaro A few things have changed between the first "Red Riding" and this one and I'm not talking about the years in between both stories. On the similarities, yes, both films are completely overestimated by their audiences, both are good films not great ones and they are trapped on similar suffocating presentations that almost makes them weak films.Instead of the masochist investigative journalist with an quite exciting life here we have an detective (Paddy Considine) following the steps of a new Jack the Ripper killing women out there, in the England of the 1980's (although this man started the killing back in the 1970's). The movie brings back some characters of the previous movie like the ones played by David Morrissey (again, reduced to a few lines, his part gets bigger in the third film) and Robert Sheehan (BJ) and gives us some flashbacks with the journalist Eddie (Andrew Garfield) repeated here from a different perspective. Lies, corruption, dirty schemes are also part of the intriguing but confusing plot.I gotta recognize that this was a little bit more effective than the first film since in that I couldn't get what the writer and director were trying to do. The semi-originality of this flick is being a movie about catching a killer without displaying gallons of blood and fake make-up, "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1980" instead prefers to be more about the hunt for the killer than to show what he does and how he does. Just by hearing his methods of killing you get terrified, disgusted. It's the kind of film you can easily suggest to people who are afraid of seeing horrible things on the screen. However, this originality pays some high cost with more demanding viewers because it's presentation is painfully slow, more tedious than the first film (there's no sex scenes with Andy so, there's no lift up's and probably you'll sleep easier here), very talky for a film of its kind, it takes a ridiculous time to really something new happen during the course of investigations. The surprise at the conclusion worth all the while, it's really good. Fincher's "Zodiac" is hundred times better if we have to draw some comparisons.I can't complain about the acting, all actors are great. Fans of this series of films will enjoy it without complications. It's good, not very good but good. 6/10

charlytully "In the north we do what we want, even if it means letting Fluffy adapt the SOUND AND FURY of four books into three indecipherable movies." That's the credo of the bunch who tried to churn out Britain's answer to the Scandanavian THE GIRL WHO . . . trilogy, but were too cheap to spring for one flick per book, ditching 1977 (unlike the HARRY POTTER or TWILIGHT people, who are splitting books into TWO films!). Well, generally, you get what you pay for. While Britain's A-Team of actors nearly all show up in the Potter movies, the made-for-UK-TV RED RIDING films are populated by a bunch of ugly character actors doing ugly things in an uninvolving way barely adequate to hold attention for one feature, let alone three. Evidently, everyone involved has an ax to grind against the British enclave called West Yorkshire, as every manner of pervert finds safe haven there from the police, most of who are psychopathic murderers themselves. Birds of a feather flock together, as Queen Elizabeth II might mutter, while munching another swanburger. "Guess what, many cops are corrupt" could not be the sole basis for a Hollywood movie. But with their quaint customs of the Changing of the Funny Hat Guard and unarmed bobbies, apparently this is big enough news to naive Brits that even mud pies with a police corruption theme will be eaten up by the public there. After reviewing the mishmash of David Peace's acclaimed novel quartet made by the three RED RIDING movie directors, one can only conclude that Fluffy (Hogwart's three-headed guard pooch) could have done at least as well.

kluseba After the brilliant ending of the first part of the trilogy, I expected a lot from this second part. In the beginning, this follow-up didn't meet my expectations but after I've had accept the new style and the new story line I began to appreciate this movie a lot.This movie takes place six years after the ending of the first movie. Peter Hunter, played by a brilliant and insightful Paddy Considine, comes back to Yorkshire after he had investigated on the shooting scene that took place in the end of the first movie but he wasn't able to resolve the crime at that time because his wife had lost a child. A few years later, he comes now back to resolve the crimes of the Yorkshire Ripper who had killed thirteen young women. But the demons of the past are still present and Peter Hunter wants to resolve the case he had once to abandon. But as he is torn into a circle of lies, corruption and criminality, his enemies tries to stop his investigations.The second part of the trilogy has a slow paced beginning as the first one and the connections to the end of the first part are not yet visible. Later on, there are some flashbacks and memories that explain what has happened after the tragical ending of the shooting scene and in the end of this second part, we get to know what really happened as Peter Hunter meets an eyewitness that was present during the shooting and what happened afterwards. The ending of the movie is well done even if it is a little bit too predictable.A part of this interesting story line in relation to the first movie, this film is much more a personal drama than a suspenseful thriller. The search for the Yorkshire Ripper is not really addicting and the solution of this case is rather silly and boring. That's the main weak point of this movie as this investigation is an unsatisfying deception. They should have elaborated a little bit more on that or they should not have included this detail at all.What is interesting about this movie is the personal drama part of it. The movie talks about love, passion and loss and Peter Hunter who lives all kind of difficult moments and uneasy emotions. The movie talks about such difficult topics like isolation or abortion and those details make this movie really authentic and emotional. Maxine Peake as Hunter's colleague and lover Helen Marshall does an outstanding and credible job as well as Bob Craven as a menacing, provoking and ugly police officer or Peter Mullan as the religious and mysterious Martin Laws. Every character is quite well developed and this is the strongest point of this movie.All in all, this movie is a different genre than the first one. It is rather a drama than a thriller. Once you have accepted that, you will like the profound characters and the talented actors in this movie as well as the interesting connection to the first movie. What rates this movie down is the weak side story line around the Yorkshire Ripper and the fact that the second part of the trilogy has not the same intense atmosphere of a film noir as the first part that did a slightly better overall job. But still, I think that a seven star rating is acceptable for this second part, too and I recommend you to watch this follow-up.