Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1980 (2009 TV Movie) User Reviews

A slow-burner with a blistering conclusion.

[Rockwell_Cronenberg · 7/10 · 4 August 2011]

After the nonstop dark intensity of 1974, 1980 plays things a lot more reserved and close to the chest. Like it's predecessor, this one opens up by throwing us right in the middle of a serial murder case, led this time by Paddy Considine's Peter Hunter, and then slowly delves more into the world of corruption within the Yorkshire police force. Whereas the first film took us into this terrifying world through the eyes of a journalist, here we are right in the middle of the police, studying the corrupt within the force along with those outside of it.

Director James Marsh gives the film a sharp, stated tone that does a great job of putting us in the shoes of Hunter. We suspect everyone and everything, even those closest to him. When he's talking to fellow officers, we feel that all of them are dirty, especially the ones higher up on the ladder. The individual case for this film is the Yorkshire Ripper and the film makes a compelling race for Hunter and his team to bring this man to justice. However, the more interesting aspect of the film is when we get to see Hunter dealing with the corruption within the force.

After the climatic events that concluded 1974, we see that Hunter was the one who investigated the epic shootout and made a lot of enemies when he dug into corruption within the force. There is always this looming danger surrounding Hunter throughout and Considine plays his brave paranoia expertly. He keeps his emotions just under the surface, a very reserved protagonist to counteract Andrew Garfield's explosive one in the first feature. The film as a whole is much more subdued than 1974 and it works well.

1980 is a real slow-burner, which makes the picture slightly less compelling at the start but builds and builds into a final act that is intensely gripping. The final fifteen minutes had my heart racing like a maniac, with a powerful final twist. It's left me very hungry for more, I'm eagerly looking forward to finishing the trilogy.

In the mood of a drama

[kluseba · 7/10 · 7 November 2010]

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.

A gritty Yorkshire brought to life in shocking detail

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 16 January 2011]

The second part of the RED RIDING trilogy takes up the storyline three years later. The eventual capture of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, serves to muddy the waters of investigation but a new detective aims to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.

It's like the first film, but not. This is more of a police procedural, which may well be because of the detective lead (Considine gives a solid performance here). Once again, police corruption is the order of the day as we finally learn just how deep it goes.

It suffers a little from being the middle film in a trilogy - thus only a few loose ends are tied up here - but makes up for that with an ultra-frightening performance from Sean Harris (ISOLATION) as one of the most disturbed coppers you'll ever see on screen.

At Last

[GrahamEngland · 21 March 2009]

At last, some intelligent, challenging, original drama. Difficult at times? Yes, but that makes it stay with you. Channel 4 have become known for reality TV like Big Brother and way too many 'lifestyle' shows, they never brought 'The Wire', they've lost their way. But this is such a step in the right direction, David Peace is the outstanding British crime writer of his generation, prior to Red Riding being screened, I'd read '1974', 'GB84' and 'The Damned United'. Now I'm reading the one from the 'Red Riding' Trilogy not adapted, '1977'.

So I at least knew any adaptation would not be your conventional cop show, despite this, all these three films screened set a benchmark. The acting is superb, though it's fiction intertwined with fact, they pull it off.

At the start of this film, Warren Clarke as senior cop Molloy, monologues to camera, almost it seems in a trance, reasoning, appealing to the Yorkshire Ripper, trying to understand and almost plead with him. Like a star shell in my head, I recalled the senior policeman in the real Ripper investigation, George Oldfield, doing something not that different on national TV, 30 years ago. He was being broken by his failure after years and with bodies piling up, to catch the Ripper, he would stake everything of the tape and letters from the 'Ripper' taunting him.

They were hoaxes, the completely different accent on the tape caused the Police to let the real Ripper slip through their fingers at least once. A couple of years ago, DNA advances caught the Hoaxer over 25 years on-from samples on an envelope he licked to seal in 1978, he was a hopeless alcoholic on the DNA database for minor disorder offences.

The above sounds an unlikely story, so although Red Riding has plots that to many may seem outlandish, real life can be too. There was a culture of corruption, fitting people up and worse, in some British police forces in the 1970's. There was corruption with developers and politicians. David Peace has taken these, added his own touches, to construct what he has called 'Occult Histories', including as in GB84, the 1984/85 miners strike. 'Occult' as in alternative, rather black magic/Satan etc.

What the three films in this trilogy have done, is take the writers vision off the page and onto film in a stunning, memorable and accomplished fashion. A heap of BAFTA's surely await?

And get that DVD out!

A slight improvement on the first one

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 7/10 · 6 June 2009]

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

Detective Peter Hunter (Paddy Constantine) is assigned to head a Covert investigation into the West Yorkshire Police's handling on the Yorkshire Ripper case, authorized by the Home Secretary. He handpicks two of the best associates he knows, including one he was once romantically linked with, and the investigation starts. A prostitute, seemingly another Ripper victim, puts a dramatic turn on things when Hunter learns of her history with the head of the police force years ago and this leads to a dramatic twist involving corruption, betrayal and murder.

The Yorkshire Police's handling of the Ripper enquiry was notoriously criticized at the time it was going on, and provides an interesting, if questionable, backdrop for this superior second part of the Red Riding trilogy. The only part of the series to deviate from the original story into something completely different, it's a dour and humourless affair but at least there is a clear and intelligent story to follow here, that doesn't get too lost in deep, dark monologues and moody atmosphere.

In the lead role, Constantine fits the material with a straight laced and serious demeaneur that is matched by the rest of the supporting cast. Hopefully, the relatives of the Ripper's victims didn't find it too disrespectful but this is quite possibly the most well made and gripping part of the story. ***

The most powerful of the trilogy

[nesfilmreviews · 9/10 · 1 March 2013]

"Red Riding: 1980" follows more or less the same formula as the first installment: an illicit sexual relationship complicates an investigation--and provides a disturbing commentary on, a series of grisly crimes against women. "Red Riding: 1980" introduces a new main character: Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine), a "clean" Manchester cop being brought in to investigate the local police force's handling of the high-profile "Yorkshire Ripper" case. To date, 13 women have been killed by what is presumed to be one person, but there have been no arrests and little progress. (Events in this movie are loosely based on an infamous real-life case.) Peter's hand- picked team includes two past associates: the businesslike John Nolan (Tony Pitts) and Helen Marshall (Maxine Peake), with whom he previously had an affair. Hunter gets little help but plunges ahead, discovering that one of the 13 victims may have a different killer.

Hunter begins to the investigation, thinking it has something to do with his previous visit to Yorkshire in 1974, when he rubbed the local authorities the wrong way while investigating a shooting. As Detective Hunter delves deeper into the case, it becomes increasingly obvious that incompetence isn't likely to blame for the lack of progress made by Yorkshire police.

The acting in "Red Riding: 1980" is improved from it's predecessor. Paddy Considine is an established, respected actor and it shows in his performance. The members of the supporting cast, with the exception of Maxine Peake, are solid. Warren Clarke is very good at being an utterly despicable villain despite limited screen time. This second film, directed by "Man on Wire" James Marsh, was shot in 35mm widescreen. The more polished look however, does nothing to diminish the ominous atmosphere- -or the sense of oppression accompanying the setting. In all three films,

Though the films--each by a different director--share some of the same characters, there's no epic build from one episode to the next. Rather, after each part concludes, the next more or less begins from a standing start. "Red Riding: 1980" is the movie in which the trilogy comes into its own. Gone is the uneven pacing associated with the first film. The film itself is sturdier than it's predecessor especially as its pace tightens with Marsh displaying a palpable mastery of tension. This production starts at a high level and proceeds on a clear and strong trajectory. It tells its own story while at the same time expanding the canvas of the overall tale. The ending completes the individual arc--but leaves the viewer yearning for more. It's hard to imagine anyone watching this film not seeking the time and opportunity to see the final volume of the trilogy.

A binge watching of RED RIDING TRILOGY - Part Two 1980

[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).

The police corruption which disclosed in 1974 turns out to be just a tip of a humongous iceberg, in 1980, after the inaction of the current head Bill Molloy (Clarke), our protagonist is Assistant Chief Constable Peter Hunter (Considine, in an atypical clean-cut appearance), who takes up the gauntlet to investigate the notorious Yorkshire Ripper case (inspired by the real events), which has already claimed a dozen lives, mainly female prostitutes. But soon he will meet more resistance and pressure from within the police department when he is tipped that one of the victims might not be the ripper's work. The tension retains in a high-strung tenor when we see a diligent Peter being taunted by the reprobates on a daily base, in particular from officer Bob Craven (Harris, reprised his role from 1974, and he is so delectably sinister through and through), the lowest scum of the earth. There are some gnawing hitches mined in the narrative, a key confessor is timely dispatched when he refuses to divulge the information on the phone but also has no intention to meet Peter in the hotel where he stays, instead, he asks Peter to come to his home in the witching hour, only to a sorry outcome. Also, it is unwarranted for Peter to appoint Helen Marshall (Peake), his former adulteress, into his team, to further complicate his scrape, plus a superfluous subplot of his broody effort is ironically dismissed by Helen's unsolicited abortion. After finally revealing the bloody picture of that singular murder (not done by the ripper), which connects to the finale of 1974, the story again, sets up a chilling twist to be brutally honest about to which rank extent the forces of law and order has been sullied.

Challenging but brilliant material

[ben_cg · 10/10 · 18 March 2009]

The second film in the Red-Riding trilogy is another haunting almost hallucinatory tale of revenge and justice. Paddy Considine is excellent as the slightly cerebral and introspective officer assigned to review the failing investigation into the Yorkshire ripper, and the whole cast give performances of a very high class. The shocking corruption of the Yorkshire police revealed in the first film now intertwines into the real life history of the ripper's crimes and the bumbling investigation which was still fixated on the (hoax) tapes and letters in a fascinating but terrifying way.

It feels like a lot of material is woven into the film which expects you to pay attention and work stuff out. Having said this I found the film easy to watch, it didn't drag at all but like many great films it requires you to think a little. I really will need to see it a second time to try and piece together all of the threads, this is dense and exciting storytelling - perhaps not for everybody but hopefully this will find the audience it deserves.

Some say that the corrupt police story is too fantastic, but we know for a fact that some people were fitted up (via beatings and falsifying/withholding evidence by the police) for major crimes during this period (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four etc.) and that some police such as the Vice squad in London were running a very lucrative protection racket in Soho with senior officers (DCS) directly involved. Without giving away the plot the story here only goes slightly further and seems 'believable enough' to me.

Although essentially produced as 'TV Movies' the first two films (and I expect the 3rd to be the same) have been of a higher standard than about 95% of film releases, I strongly urge anyone who likes intelligent crime noir to see these films if you get the chance.

Decent Film, Good Backdrop

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 25 March 2016]

A team of investigators attempt to stop a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper from claiming his next victim, but uncover something far more terrifying.

I really appreciate this story being set in the time of the Yorkshire Ripper. That gives me something familiar, but not something overdone. And although the focus seems to be on a team of detectives trying to track the Ripper, this is more or less just a jumping off point, because it never seems like the story is heading towards a resolution at a quick pace.

(In real life, West Yorkshire Police were criticised for the time they took in apprehending the real killer, despite interviewing him nine times during the murder hunt. Owing to the sensational nature of the case, they were having to handle an exceptional volume of information, some of it misleading, including a hoax recorded message and letters purporting to be from the "Ripper". So the pace is not inaccurate.) This is a good film, but somehow never seems to reach the level of part one. This may be my bias, though, as I prefer journalists over detectives... but even the feel is off. It seems like James marsh was going in and out of documentary mode, while the previous film just wanted to tell a good story.

Stunning movie-making

[sergepesic · 10/10 · 20 December 2010]

The second installment in the Red Riding Trilogy set in 1980, is even better than the excellent first part. The putrid corruption of the West Yorkshire police is , if possible, more pronounced three years later. Their sheer incompetence is easily revealed during the desperate search for the Yorkshire Ripper,diabolical serial killer praying on prostitutes. The atmosphere of the second part of the trilogy is as a gloomy and depressing as ever,not unlike the lives of the unfortunate souls unlucky enough to end up in this hellhole of a place. I am eagerly awaiting the ending of this harrowing story in one of the best TV project I've seen after the legendary " Prime Suspect".

More of the same. Good and complicated again.

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 6/10 · 28 August 2011]

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

Stunning film making, corrupt and compelling on several levels

[OJT · 9/10 · 11 April 2014]

It's not necessary to have seen the first of this trilogy, "Red Riding: In the year of our lord 1974", but I would still recommend it if you have the option. Though this is better and more interesting, the first is still very good, though might be a let down compared to this second. I rated "1974 to a 7 of 10, and this is a 8,5, so I've voted 9, because it's simply not a 7,2 which is the current rating.

Without revealing any plot either from "1974" or "1980" the films are both very well made. artful, beautiful though gloomy and bleak. Fantastic filming, simply first class when it comes to ideas as well as angles and thought put into every scene. Stunningly beautiful and very believable, and solid British in style.

A special group is sent to Yorkshire to investigate the Yorkshire Rippedr case, which now has turned up 13 dead women, and is riding the police force and the British public as a mare. But why is the police so ineffective? Right from the start you are into the suspense.

The acting is electric, with Paddy Considine in his best role of the ones I've seen. but every single one acting here is amazingly good. Solid and electric. I was literary glued in front of this. Compelling and riveting film making. James March has directed the film perfectly, and all is put into 90 minutes of brilliance. One of those films you decide you want to see again, before the end credits are over.

Another kind

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 22 September 2010]

I'm assuming you have watched "Red Riding 1974" before you watch this movie or read this review. I'm saying this, because I will talk about the first part of the trilogy as if you've seen it. So while Garfields character is "gone", we get a new main character played by Paddy Considine. And while many might know him playing comedies, he definitely is up to the task at hand here.

This one feels quite a bit different tonally then the first one. While the characters remain appalling (new ones and the known ones from part one), it still has a dark appeal to those who get involved in it. But through all that, I still felt that it wasn't as good as the first one. I thought the first one was more to the point, whereas this one tries to connect and tell a new story. Still very good and if you have seen the first one, you surely have to see this one too. And as another reviewer said, if you like movies like Zodiac (Finchers one), than you will love this one.

Infuriatingly unsatisfying

[not-gates · 2/10 · 24 November 2011]

Well shot and acted and all that, but if you think you're going to get a remotely satisfying ending with this trilogy, be forewarned. I signed up for IMDb just so I could vent at how much bulls#@!$ this final piece is. Not only does it plod along, it plods along to almost nowhere (there's a small amount of resolution), and then just kind of ends. All of the protagonists in this one are weak, and things descend into lubricious melodrama, that, on top of that, is completely implausible. Don't waste your time.

Just because something is "gritty" and deals with extreme themes does not make it good. And just because a story has the "guts" to not allow for happy endings or catharsis, does not make the evil characters' actions logically plausible. The whole conspiracy in this series would be so difficult to pull off as to disallow suspension of disbelief. It's like the writer was like "we're edgy, we'll make it so that barely any justice ever happens to show that sometimes the good guys don't win. Damn, we are so raw!" But ignore how reality actually works.

Damn, this mini-series (especially this installment) made me angry. I wish I could see it walking down the street so I could punch it in the face. Repeatedly.

a side trip

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 21 May 2016]

A serial killer is on the loose and the West Yorkshire Police are helpless. Assistant chief Bill Molloy breaks down on TV and Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine) from Manchester is recruited to lead a second investigation. He takes Helen Marshall and John Nolan with him. Harold Angus assigns Bob Craven to be the liaison. Hunter had investigated the Karachi Club killings which Eddie Dunford was involved with at the end of the previous movie. As the investigation continues, Hunter faces accusations of an affair with Marshall.

Paddy Considine is playing a very reserved character. Most of the story is not directly connected to the missing girls story. The serial killer story wraps up in the most unsatisfying way possible but the last ten minutes do reconnect back to the original story. This is a bit of a side trip with little nuggets of information for the bigger picture.

Red Riding:1980

[lost-in-limbo · 9/10 · 15 March 2010]

After the events that occurred in the first chapter, the second entry sees things take place six years later, but what happened then still seems to be creating a ripple effect now. Detective Peter Hunt is assigned to take charge of a covert investigation inspecting the West Yorkshire police's handling of the Yorkshire ripper case (this is where the writers excellently let the fiction get caught amongst the true facts of this infamous case). However what he uncovers is something much more damaging about one of the Ripper's supposed victims, which leads him down the path of inside corruption and cover-ups. Chapter 1980 is even better and a little more straight-forward and steady in its story-telling, despite some fragmented passages (re-examining past dealings) in a narrative that mainly focuses on the police/and their questionable actions than say the victims/outsiders like in the first film. This gives an angle that those people investigating a truly swimming with sharks, as if their interference is nothing more than a hindrance that they will only find themselves in over their heads amongst unwanted turmoil and their own personal problems will get in their way. Although the victims are still just as important in the scheme of things and uncovering what's really going on. The murky story manages to hold you, as when you think it's going to plan as you go on to connect the dots it piles on the biting twists leading to betrayal and murder. You feel like your peering in, as its serious and blunt trappings just evoke such an authentic feel that this could happen which makes it even more unsettling, although it doesn't quite match the punch of the first film. Still it ends on quite a stomach turning note (not visually speaking, but how it pans out) and final image with the flighty score leaves a haunting mark. In all it's the conniving nature that shocks, even if the violence has a sledgehammer intensity and exposition. However it tends to describe the horrific violence, than let the viewer actually glimpse it. Director James Marsh's streamlined handling is glum and leisured, but slickly sterile as it hypnotically takes you along with its methodical camera-work and expressively tantalizing music score. He paints a shady air, where the strong script delves within the weight-filled characters and interlocking revelations. The performances might come across typically sullen, but still superbly genuine. Paddy Considine's commendably dedicated performance is mesmerizing as he harbours good and bad elements to his weary character Peter Hunt. Everyone seems to be forsaken is some shape. The cast again put in another sensational effort. Maxine Peak stands out and so does the likes of Sean Harris, Tony Pitts, David Morrissey and Warren Clarke.

Improves on the first film with better pacing and delivery even if the grim atmosphere and other issues remain

[bob the moo · 26 January 2014]

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.

Good Dramatic Film

[damianphelps · 6/10 · 9 August 2023]

The Red Riding series is a trilogy of solid dramatic films that are definitely worth checking out. The Year of Our Lord 1980 is obviously one of those :)

This film for me was a little confusing at times but overall follow-able. The visuals of the film are awesome, they send you right into the era and the location of the story so you feel really connected.

The winner of the piece is Paddy Considine. He delivers such a star performance. He provides the credibility, the soul and depth of the goings on. Without him we would have a much weaker offering.

Take a cold rainy day and watch them together over a glass of wine :)

A more serious and more controlled sequel. VERY good!

[MetalAngel · 9/10 · 12 September 2010]

(this review is a follow-up on the "Red Riding" trilogy; for previous references, including further information on the trilogy, read the review for Julian Jarrold's "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974") Once again, Yorkshire's Channel 4 and Revolution Films' admirable "Red Riding" trilogy has managed to completely absorb me. The second part of the series is directed by James Marsh (from the exceptionally good documentary "Man on Wire") and here we see how hiring three different directors for each film works to the trilogy's advantage: Julian Jarrold established an emotional basis in "1974" as well as the main characters who sully the British government with unimaginable corruption; his work hovered on poignant emotion, his characters opened our minds to the horror behind the crimes his film exposes...in short, "1974" served as a gritty introduction to what promised to be a fabulously dark series. Now James Marsh takes over with the second film, "1980", in an even grittier and more suspenseful tone.

This second film introduces us to Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine), a criminal investigator who (like Eddy Dunford in the first film) is transferred to Yorkshire to investigate on a series of brutal crimes. This time, Yorkshire has been haunted for over four years with the infamous Jack the Ripper, who's already claimed thirteen victims, all prostitutes, and who has all of England terrified. Unlike Dunford who was an over-excitable but keen rookie, Hunter has ample experience and a very methodical and controlled way about him; we can see he's an expert at what he does and that he has no trouble managing his team and interpreting his information. He's replacing Bill Molloy (Warren Clarke) as the chief criminal investigator of the Yorkshire police (much to the Force's chagrin) and is met with instant dislike from his new co-workers and once again, the ever-cryptic Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey) leaves him on his own, mysteriously distancing himself and reserving any kind of comment.

Unlike Dunford too, Hunter has all the files available to him and is working with the support of the police, which should make his job easier; he's been allowed to assemble his own team, and he includes an agent/old lover of his, Helen (Maxine Peake), on the investigation. He comes to discover that the Yorkshire police is contemptuous of him not only because he's basically taking over their investigation but because, while making his inquiries, he comes into contact with many people involved in the shooting at the Kawasaki club (the place where the denouement of "1974" happens in one of that film's final scenes). Naturally, his involvement with this incident speaks of danger to the corrupt elite of the Force and Hunter will soon find that his life is in danger...and that Jack the Ripper is NOT the greatest of Britain's troubles.

James Marsh does an excellent job. He's not as keen to observe the poignancy behind his characters' emotions, but that may be because his characters aren't meddling rookies but true professionals. Paddy Considine does an excellent job with the lead role; observe how Hunter always keeps his cool, how he gauges each situation and intelligently leads his words into exacting truths from the people- even when the film climbs to nerve-shattering heights, this man seldom fails to control the situation. Even the romantic subplot between Hunter and Helen is very controlled; unlike Dunford and Paula in the first film, the couple here are matured, logical people who rarely let their emotions betray their actions, no matter how much pain we read in their eyes.

The pace of this second film is quicker, too. Here we see Marsh's "Man on Wire" skill over again; scenes roll by quickly, the multi-layered plot twists and turns almost seamlessly, there's rapid-fire dialogue and some very logical, quick-witted analysis of facts...we can see how meticulously well Marsh (and screenwriter Tony Grisoni) worked over the story. That's NOT to say, though, that the film is merely an exercise in plot and story-writing, leaving characterization and emotion completely to the side. No, Marsh uses his characters' personalities, troubles and traumas to move the plot along. Let's just say that this film has a more 'mature' air about it, that it seems more logical and intelligent than the previous one, which means that the horror and suspense will be plot-driven rather than emotion-driven.

Once again, the film starts out with the investigation of gruesome murders but strays into a completely different subject (namely police corruption). This is not a flaw in the film- it wasn't a flaw for the first film either- because this "Red Riding" trilogy is interested in shedding some horrifying light on the nature of corruption; it makes us think about how deeply-rooted it is in our society, how we can't run from it...the murders are the inciting incident, a subplot even. In the first film, Dunford was an inexperienced journalist so the police had little trouble dealing with him; here, they're dealing with one of their own so the stakes are raised. THAT, I think, is what heightens the suspense of it all.

By the end of "1974" and "1980" you'll be more than overwhelmed with the harrowing world you've been introduced to. James Marsh, his cast and his crew do an excellent job with "1980" giving us some of the best crime noir in a long time. I can't wait to see the third and final film! Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

Dark, Mysterious.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 5 March 2015]

It's not a typical serial murderer story with slick knives and bath tubs of gore. It's dark and moody. It rains a lot and much of the story takes place at night. Typical scene: the chief investigator and the colleague he once was hooked up with sit in his car. The car's headlights are on, illuminating a blank wall where one of the murders took place. It's drizzling and the windshield wipers arc back and forth. The two people speak quietly to one another and the conversation is elliptic. Only gradually is it revealed that the two have had an affair.

I'm giving this six stars because I think it was intelligent, deliberate, and thoughtful. But I didn't make it to the end, and what I did hear was sometimes unintelligible. I don't know whether it was the sound on my system or the acting or the Yorkshire accents. I weren't at all sure.

I was confused too because this is evidently part two of a miniseries and I hadn't seen part one. I don't know whether that made a difference or not.

Good luck with it.

Phase Two:Deeper Into The Quagmire

[druid333-2 · 9/10 · 2 April 2010]

The year is now 1980. After several years of silence,there is a reprisal of killings from the West Yorkshire Ripper. The case is now re opened by Lt.Peter Hunter,a transfer from another police force,presumably from the south of England. Despite the fact that the officers are to report to Lt.Hunter,they make him feel like a total outsider ("We'll get Our Yorkshire ripper,not yours",pipes one co worker,with no shortage of snideness in his voice). In the wake of all of this,allegations of Lt.Hunter having an affair with a fellow officer on the force (Helen Mitchell),is brought up,attempting to monkey wrench Lt.Hunter's chances of staying on the case. Other elements figure into this story of trying to catch a killer before he (she?)strikes again. James Marsh ('Man On A Wire')directs from a screenplay,once again written by Tony Grisoni,adapted from the novel by David Peace. The wide screen cinematography is by Igor Martinovic. Paddy Considine takes on the role of Lt.Peter Hunter,a cop who is trying to keep his head above water & do the best job he can do,despite the fact that he is about as unwelcome an element as one can be. Maxine Peake is Helen Marshall,who in addition to being assigned to the case,was Peter's ex lover. British screen veteran,James Fox ('Performance')is John Marsden,and Warren Clarke,David Morrissey are back from episode one in their respective roles as Bill Molloy & Maurice Jobson,and even Andrew Garfield,in flash back form,as journalist Eddie Dunford. The pacing in this one is a bit slower,but doesn't hamper interest one bit. If you enjoyed 'Red Riding:In the Year Of Our Lord 1974',as much as I did,you'll want to seek this one out,as well (the three films are packaged together,but are currently being screened with separate admissions). Not rated by the MPAA,this film has occasional outbursts of strong language,adult situations,gruesome images of the aftermath of a murder (including the soundtrack of the murder itself,recorded on a cassette),some brief,but bloody violence.

do not watch this

[fashinrashin · 7/10 · 26 August 2021]

Its brilliant acting, very evocative of the period, sensational, but if you like kids or have children this trilogy will really do your head in There should be a real warning that comes with this film.

Worse than miscarriage of justice

[Dr_Coulardeau · 9/10 · 21 October 2016]

Vicious, disgusting, more than gory, just gross, and yet so true to "life" if this is life. It sure is Yorkshire, accent, desolation and misery (more than plain and simple poverty), cruelty, pollution, greed, vice, perversion, etc. spread all over. All evils in one pouch, one bag in West Yorkshire and the motto that "this is the north, where we do what we want," that's the great beauty of ugliness.

It will take you three long episodes to reach the culprit and you won't be surprised at all when you finally come to him. In the meantime the police would have revealed itself the most odious, ferocious and mentally cannibalistic institution you can imagine. Asking a question for them is necessarily hurting, torturing and a few other things of the sort: breaking fingers, crushing burning cigarettes anywhere you can imagine, stripping the suspects naked, and the films do not show them naked (prudes!). There is not one single person in the police force that is able to do anything regular like find a culprit that is really guilty and bring that one to justice.

One journalist is driven to craziness and some deadly justice enforcing spree, and yet you will know if he was right in his choice of targets at the end of the third film. Another young man, slightly spaced out will be convinced under duress by everyone, probably only in the police, that he killed the girl. And he will end his life in prison. With little chance to be retried since he signed a confession and pleaded guilty.

And quite a few are questioned that way and yet the crimes are going on: kidnapped girls, then raped, and in many ways cut up and carved up and more or less endowed with wings and feathers.

And all that in a society that is rotten to the core, that speculates on the death of as many people as possible with pollution and the exploitation of them as long as they live with projects that are as crazy as they are greedy of shopping malls with cinemas and all kinds of entertainments to empty the billfolds of the gullible submissive slaves of the public till they are empty and they can then commit suicide or die young of any kind of hazardous escaping tentative or industrial pollution. And for the girls and women prostitution and promiscuity are the main two udders of everyday suspended death. You can imagine what the other two are.

And be sure that all the cadres of the police and the most respected people in this society, lay and clerical, are among the small circle of speculators and their only aim is to make money and thus to keep the surrounding society going because you cannot squeeze money out of marginal miserable derelict and impoverished proletariat. No matter what, they must have just a little bit more than their basic needs to be able to spend that little bit more in the traps of the entertaining plotters.

Is it a great trilogy? I do not know but one thing is sure even if at the end the killer is finally put out of the way all the corrupted elite of this part of Yorkshire will not be in any way even questioned, not to speak of prosecuted. After all corruption is the basic human dimension: the survival instinct of the more corrupted declared the fitter, by all means, even selling their parents into slavery and feeding their own children to the industrial sharks of our certainly not post-modern society but definitely pre-modern jungle.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

"He's Found Peace.." yes, but the audience won't...

[A_Different_Drummer · 3/10 · 31 December 2013]

This is part 2 in the trilogy, also known as the "non-awaited sequel" to one of the most dreary and depressing films of all time. I did review the first part, and so, duly forewarned BY READING MY OWN REVIEW, I did indeed know what I was getting myself into, but I have always liked watching Paddy Considine work at his craft, and that was my reason for continuing. The story? Deep, dark, bleak, corruption in a police department that is itself located in one of the deepest and darkest parts of England. How bleak you ask?? Let me simply say that the main story, the corruption, is set against a narrative backdrop of a serial killer who is also known as the "Ripper" -- and that part of the story generally offers the viewer a refreshing and upbeat tempo change from the central theme. Note, BTW, how the number of IMDb members reviewing this second part has dropped dramatically from the first. This trilogy is almost a psychological marathon, and those who can't take the pain, or fear they may possibly do themselves harm, just fall by the wayside and wait for the Red Cross van to collect them. In my review of Part I, I noted that the ending, amazingly, redeemed the entire production. I wish I could say the same here, but, as I write this, they are removing my belt and shoelaces...

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.