MetalAngel

(The following review is a follow-up on the reviews written for Julian Jarrold's "Red Riding: 1974" and James Marsh's "Red Riding: 1980"; for further info on the Red Riding trilogy and content related to the series' continuity, read the other reviews before this one.) The excellent Red Riding trilogy has finally come to a close...and it went out with quite a bang! Anand Tucker helms the final film, "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1983" and does a pitch-perfect job of joining the two previous films, solving up most of the enigmas that had been ignored, and closing the circle. Tucker is a master at his characters' catharses and at carefully observing and commenting on the infinitely heartbreaking human characteristics of revenge, redemption and atonement. Tucker concludes Jarrold and Marsh's films in this way: he extracts Jarrold's poignancy from "1974" and Marsh's intelligence from "1980", mixes them and adds his own masterful touch while tying the loose ends of each film's plots. The result is, as I've said before, an excellent closure to this harrowing series and a very satisfying finale.

The film returns to 1974, and the opening scene shows us the corrupt and darkly evil group of villains we've already come to know assembled in a country estate, including Harold Angus (Jim Carter), the seedy police superintendent, and Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey), the mysteriously cryptic and detached crime investigator. The child murders we saw in the first film are only just being discovered by the police, and their shady dealings with John Dawson (Sean Bean) are beginning to be discussed. Then the film shifts us to the year 1983, where attorney John Piggott (Mark Addy) is being commissioned to appeal for the killer of the three girls, whom his family believes to be innocent (and secretly, so do we).

The film dangerously shifts between 1974 and 1983 without letting the viewer know. At first we're confused to see so many characters who're supposed to be dead already involved in present-time events, but as the film goes along it is all explained. Tucker is interested not in the chronology of events or making sense out of the twisted plot...after all, what sense can ever be extracted from such base crime and corruption? We eventually manage to sort the plot out, and by then we just KNOW that no matter whether the events make sense or not, the depravity and evil behind it all can never explain itself to our consciences. Tucker digs deeper into the Yorkshire murders than Jarrold and Marsh could because he can play with all of the characters from the previous two films, giving us everybody's side of the story, everyone's point of view and every person's true face (as opposed to the mask they've been painting all along). And the new character (Piggott, the attorney) who we've only come to know is such an ambiguous, flawed and relatable character that (even through his weak points) he becomes the most human character of the film. Piggott leads the investigation taking place in 1983 and Maurice Jobson leads a covert investigation back in 1974 parallel to Eddy Dunford's (but obviously laden with a corrupt agenda).

Once again, the film builds a steady tension that reaches unbearable heights as each minute passes on, as as the answers to all the questions we had are revealed to us, we can't help but lift our hands to our mouths and stare open-eyed at the horror behind the truth. The first two films dealt with one person trying to expose the guilty murderers and crime lords; this film is about the murderers and members of the Force seeing how they can cover up their footprints, how they can redeem themselves from tainted consciences, and how they can go on living while internal disagreements arise. And Anand Tucker, who has shown us with films like "Hilary and Jackie" and "Shopgirl" that he's a master at exploiting guilt and internal conflict, makes the most of his characters and blows them up from the inside out.

I can't say anything about the ending without spoiling everything for you, but I WILL say that the series couldn't have ended better. I saw these films on DVD, in the comfort of my bedroom, and as soon as "1983" was over I felt like jumping to my feet and clapping my heart out. I'll never tire of repeating this: I am amazed! Overwhelmed, really.

I've recently heard that Ridley Scott's been taken into consideration to direct an American film which joins this trilogy into one full-length feature. That is just ridiculous. These three films put together amount to over FOUR hours and a half, and not a minute is wasted in any of them. Trying to summarizing this will take out the POINT of it all, and is sure to be a flop (after all, there's a reason why the British made this into a trilogy). I seriously recommend you see this before the USA releases its own reduced version. This is as good as trilogies are ever gonna get. Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!

(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!

There's a new fashion going about European filmmakers, and it's to hire a great number of important directors to work on the same project: there's "Paris, Je t'Aime" which was a film consisting of various short films by a great number of highbrow artists which, put together, made up a poignant portrait of the city; then there's "Chacun son Cinéma", another film where various vignettes made up a very intelligent view of people's love for cinema; and now we have the "Red Riding" trilogy, which has recently become internationally famous due to its powerful storytelling and harrowing complexity. The "Red Riding" trilogy are three films by three important directors which, put together, explore the shocking truth behind crime and police corruption in Scotland and sheds light on some of England's most bizarre murder cases (including Jack the Ripper). This was a huge project commissioned by Yorkshire's Channel 4 and produced largely by Revolution Studios; it made quite an impact on English viewers, the three films were joined into a 4 hour and a half-long movie in the USA, and is now being released in DVD to critics and audiences' wide acclaim. Intrigued by all the rage, I decided to rent this huge project to watch at home.

The trilogy begins with "1974" directed by Julian Jarrold (in a bold departure from his usual style, like "Brideshead Revisited"). Jarrold, as you may know, is a director who opens up his films in a very slow, meditative pace and methodically gathers up the pace to nerve-shattering intensity. "1974" introduces us to Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield) a young investigative reporter working for the Yorkshire news. He's no doubt talented, but is new to the job and, like any excited rookie, is prone to some blunders and is in need of experience. One of his first assignments on the job is to report on the recent death of a ten year-old girl, who was found murdered on a large, abandoned plot of land, dreadfully tortured and featuring a pair of swan wings stitched into her back. Dunford starts investigating and soon finds that this murder may be connected to the murder of two other girls in previous years.

Due to his lack of experience and unduly-channeled zeal, he starts asking very problematic questions and meets opposition from most of his co-workers, including investigation leader Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey). He gets involved in a couple of miscarried interviews and draws attention upon himself...but learns from his mistake. Little by little, he starts putting the pieces together and ends up with a dumbfounding web of police corruption, high-level crime involvement, an unexpected lover (Rebecca Hall) who's linked to his investigation and who seems to be keeping some information from him, and some very powerful enemies including a corporate magnate (Sean Bean), who's presence itself is more than fearful.

Jarrold has really outdone himself. The web is spun with countless twists and intrigues and as the minutes run by, you can't help but be fascinated and scandalized at the kind of events unfolding. The film explores Dunford's character in depth (and Andrew Garfield's performance is pitch-perfect) but far from only being an exercise in character development, the film excels at commenting on the horror of corruption. This is a psychological thriller, and the terror behind the plot lies on how deep this corruption runs; it forces the viewer to accept the fact that we are alone when our safety and protection are involved, and that the police and government are actually the ones behind the atrocious murders we so frequently read about in the papers. Dunford will eventually find himself alone, fighting against (or running from) the highest powers of his country. As intelligent viewers we're tempted to inhabit the story and walk into Dunford's shoes...to extremely frightful conclusions.

The story is excellent. Based on David Peace's renowned crime noir novels, the screenplay by Tony Grisoni is practically flawless. Adrian Johnston's score is (once again) both sublime and haunting, and Rob Hardy's cinematography is some of the best I've seen this year. The acting is very good too (especially Garfield, who day by day shows me he's bound to be one of Hollywood's best one of these days). There are some scenes especially that will be etched into your memory perhaps forever: notice, for instance, the two meetings Dunford has with John Dawson (the character played by Sean Bean), first in his car and then in Dawson's private club. These scenes are the work of an expert and are so flawlessly executed you KNOW they're bound to be dissected and thoroughly analyzed in some film school This is only the beginning of what the trilogy promises to be a revelatory, intelligent work of art. It MAY have some flaws, but they most certainly can be overlooked. I can't wait to see the other two films; "Red Riding" has become my new addiction.

Rating: 3 stars and a half out of 4!