Simply Perfect

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Sean Bean Week: Day 7The 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.

The final chapter of the Red Riding Trilogy, In the Year of Our Lord 1983 brings its crime & corruption saga to its conclusion and follows a corrupt police officer who's being plagued by guilt over his wrongdoings and decides to redeem himself by trying to solve the case of a missing girl after seeing connections between her disappearance & similar cases in the past.Once again employing the fractured narrative style, this third chapter does tie up the loose ends and brings its story & character arcs full circle but then, it also lacks the very sense of hurriedness that final instalments usually have for the pacing is slow and whatever secrets & mysteries are unraveled over the course of its runtime never really come off as shocking or surprising enough.The performances are a definite plus, the theme of redemption plays a big role and most of its character are finely handled but the whole experience of sitting through this trilogy still leaves a feeling of incompleteness for I expected a far more gripping story than what it had in store. If you enjoy slow-burners, then Red Riding Trilogy is worth checking out but it'd be better to go in blind & finish the trilogy in one sitting if you want the optimum experience.

This mini series was very well acted and its a good interpretation of the books. They are dark, intense and nasty. Both the books and this series leave you feeling unsatisfied IMO. I enjoyed reading and watching them however and as per my title there are some great performances by pretty much everyone involved. If you read the other reviews those that have rated it 4/10 have made some really valid points which I go along with but I believe the acting drags this up by a couple of points. Special mention to Jim Carter who is brilliant, as always. Why doesn't someone give him the lead in something? He's come a long way since a humble PC in Juliet Bravo (Chief Constable now!)

Final part of the Red Riding Trilogy (based on the Red Riding Quartet) concerns the events that transpire several years past the previous film. The Ripper is in prison, as is the killer of young girls. The trouble is that another young girl goes missing and its echoing the nastiness that the police are desperate to keep buried.I'm feeling like I was punched in the gut. This is a descent into pure evil and there seems to be little hope of escape. To be honest I'm not sure what I just saw but I need a bath.Time tripping film requires one pays a great deal of attention since the story meanders back and forth through time in such away that its not always clear when we are. Its a film that closely mirrors memory as we shift through several characters time lines. The un-rooted effect keeps you off balance which when coupled with the films continuous revelations creates an effect similar to being hit by a truck. I know some people don't like this film much because it seems so disjointed but I think if you can go with it you will be richly rewarded. (this is not a film to watch on fast forward, something I think at least one reviewer did) Supposedly the three Red Riding films can be seen separately and still have them work, and I think that's the case with the first two films in the sequence. Personally I think the first film works completely on its own, and while numerous plot points are left hanging, there is nothing to say that the story must go on. Similarly the second film works when viewed alone. yes there are references to the earlier film, but until the final minutes I think it works on its own terms.That is not the case here. Here the film bounces through time and refers so much to what has gone before that the anyone who watched this with out seeing the previous films would have none of the back story or the references to earlier events. I know I would have wondered why some things were not explained.I know the unease is such that even the ending which has some great images some how has a different sort of impact than one thinks... it is some how fitting for a film (and a series) that has confounded my expectations.What do I think of the three films? I think the films have a great deal of power. I think they are quite good. I also think that I need to see them again, partly to see what I missed previously and to have it all knitted together. But at the same time I need to see what the films were getting at. I'm still not sure what all of this is about short of a look at festering corruption.If you want challenging film-making see the films.