This first part of the trilogy does exactly what the first part of any trilogy should do... Build it up to certain point and leave the audience waiting for a couple answers to the next movie... BUT Red Riding is no ordinary trilogy.A (neo)noir crime and conspiracy led by the young and reckless journalist Eddie Dunford, one Andrew Garfield's greatest performances so far, look for his big break in the case of the lost girls of Yorkshire. At first he looks just as any bloodsucking' a**hole journalist, not just look as one but indeed is. But he look for evidence and his character grows in the eyes of the audience. He doesn't become the most likable character of the movie for sure, but at least he is less unlikeable than Sean Harris' character (What a great performance!). Sean Bean is a walking spoiler, 'cause I knew that he would die! He always dies!The cast is a big ensemble of Britain favorites, as the before mentioned Andrew Garfield, Sean Harris and Sean Bean, as also Michelle Dockery, David Morrissey, Robert Sheehan, Eddie Marsan, Daniel Mays, Peter Mullan and Rebecca Hall. With a cast like that I feel like it is impossible to make a bad movie.Visually, the movie is stupendous. Sometimes very dark and is filled with very visual stuff. As torture scenes, a little bit of sex and disposition of corpses. Andrew Garfield and Sean Harris just blow minds when they share the screen. Let's just say that my hand still feels the pain felt by Dunford's hands.As I said, Red Riding isn't an ordinary trilogy. Is very possible to watch the sequel, 1980 or 1983, without watching the previous movie. At least is how I feel... 1974 had its beginning, development and conclusion; 1974 is a whole picture. In noway just a construction to the next movie. and I do believe that the sequels treat 1974 the same way. They are linked but they can be easily three independent movies. That said, it does not mean that the sequels don't tease the audience's curiosity. Next weekend I'll watch 1980 for sure.

One of the stupier movies I've seen in a while. The "heroic" journalist is a borderline idiot, and masochistic beyond all reason; he seriously needs to get a clue, but never does. He's just a punching-bag for the bad guys.The plot is highly contrived, with lots of way-too-convenient coincidences. Lots of gloomy, nihilistic atmosphere, if you like that sort of thing, and lots of hand-wringing over what a wicked, wicked world we live in, but ultimately this movie is not up to much.(But yes, Andrew Garfield is nude...a lot...if that is what you were looking for.)

'RED RIDING': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five) Three part UK TV adaptation of author David Peace's quartet of books published from 1999 to 2002. The stories center around serial murders, missing children and most prominently police corruption. They feature several recurring characters which play minor supporting parts in some chapters and much bigger and more developed roles in others. The cast features the likes of Andrew Garfield, David Morrissey, Paddy Considine, Mark Addy, Sean Bean, Rebecca Hall and many others. The films were written by Tony Grisoni and directed by Julian Jarrold, James Marsh and Anand Tucker (each directing an individual chapter). They were released on UK television in March 2009 and theatrically in the US in February of 2010.The films are each titled 'RED RIDING: IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD...' and the year that each chapter is set in (1974, 1980 and 1983, they exclude the second book set in 1977). The first film stars Garfield as an arrogant reporter, named Eddie Dunford, who takes on an assignment for the Yorkshire Post investigating the disappearance of missing girls. He butts heads with a local businessman, named John Dawson (Bean), as well as the dirty police Dawson's involved with. He escalates his investigation to dangerous levels that eventually put his life as well as others close to him in danger. The second chapter centers around a police officer, named Peter Hunter (Considine), assigned to head up the Yorkshire Ripper murders investigation. Flashbacks are drawn to the first film, which help further explain it as well as this installment, and the story again all revolves around corrupt officers of the law which Hunter of course comes into conflict with. The final episode revolves around a supporting player from the first two films named Maurice Jobson (Morrissey), a corrupt police officer who has to deal greatly with his conscience, in this chapter, for his involvement in the crimes from previous episodes. It also focuses on a naive public solicitor (Addy) who comes to the defense of a wrongfully convicted mentally handicap young man (from previous story-lines).The films jump around a lot from present day to flashbacks without explanation, which make them very hard to differentiate (at least at first). They also move between several different story-lines rapidly and from key characters to others frequently without taking the time to allow the viewer to adjust. Besides these flaws the audio is horrible, making a large amount of dialogue very hard to comprehend, and the pacing is sometimes almost non existent. As you can tell the films are far from perfect and often leave the viewer lost, bored (as a result) and aggravated. Despite this they are beautifully shot, compelling at times and involving to a certain extent. They'll leave many desiring repeat viewings (multiple I'm sure, just to fully understand them) which is a compliment, even though they brought on the urge for this desire to begin with. Even when you don't know what's going on (which is very frequently) you can tell that it's something that could be very interesting and entertaining. There's a lot of potential here for some great entertainment but it's obviously poorly handled on so many different levels. A truly great missed opportunity.Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS7EjRs-tOE

" The Red Riding Trilogy" consist of, off course, three installments. There are connected, but the movies should be reviewed separately. The first one, set in 1974 is a dark, gloomy tale placed in Yorkshire. Characters in this desperate, mesmerizing story are all villains. Some of them are criminals, some policemen, some journalists, it is sometimes hard to tell them apart. Yorkshire in this TV movie is a cruel and barren place, populated with vicious and ruthless people. The colors are predominantly gray, the sites depressing. It all feels like a fist in a stomach. This is a film noir of the modern era, that doesn't spare anybody. If you are in it you are for it. If not...