Meurtres du Yorkshire - 1980

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.