Red Riding: 1980
Titolo originale: Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1980
VALUTAZIONE IMDb
7,1/10
10.138
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaThe Home Office bring in senior Manchester detective Peter Hunter to conduct a secret review of the Ripper investigation to date.The Home Office bring in senior Manchester detective Peter Hunter to conduct a secret review of the Ripper investigation to date.The Home Office bring in senior Manchester detective Peter Hunter to conduct a secret review of the Ripper investigation to date.
- Premi
- 2 candidature totali
Kenneth Oxtoby
- Hotel Receptionist
- (as Ken Oxtoby)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
10ben_cg
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe context of the series uses fictionalized accounts of the investigation into the Yorkshire Ripper, a serial killer who stalked the Yorkshire area of England in the 1970s and 1980s. The name of the series is a reference to the murders and to their ___location, the historic county of Yorkshire being traditionally divided into three areas known as "ridings."
- BlooperWhen Hunter goes to visit Laws, the door and windows are clearly made of UPVC which was not available in 1980.
- Citazioni
Peter Hunter: You don't like the police much, do you?
Martin Laws: No love lost, no.
Peter Hunter: So when someone kicks down your front door, kills the dog and rapes the wife, who you gonna call?
Martin Laws: Well it certainly wouldn't be the West Yorkshire Police - they'd already *be* in there, wouldn't they!
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1980
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, West Yorkshire, Inghilterra, Regno Unito(Brunswick Building, since demolished and now Leeds Arena site)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 148.826 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 14.526 USD
- 7 feb 2010
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 33 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti

Divario superiore
By what name was Red Riding: 1980 (2009) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi