A serial killer is on the loose and the West Yorkshire Police are helpless. Assistant chief Bill Molloy breaks down on TV and Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine) from Manchester is recruited to lead a second investigation. He takes Helen Marshall and John Nolan with him. Harold Angus assigns Bob Craven to be the liaison. Hunter had investigated the Karachi Club killings which Eddie Dunford was involved with at the end of the previous movie. As the investigation continues, Hunter faces accusations of an affair with Marshall.Paddy Considine is playing a very reserved character. Most of the story is not directly connected to the missing girls story. The serial killer story wraps up in the most unsatisfying way possible but the last ten minutes do reconnect back to the original story. This is a bit of a side trip with little nuggets of information for the bigger picture.

The second part of the trilogy takes a similar approach to the first film in that it sets us up with a serial killer (this time the Yorkshire Ripper) but really is more interested in the crimes going on behind the scenes with the police and politicians. In this case I think I enjoyed the film more than the first one because I was aware of this and, although I was interested in the hunt for the Ripper, I knew to almost try to focus away from it. This is a strange feeling and it is one that I still think I struggle with on this second film – that basically the main text of the film is actually subtext and vice versa. This film makes this particularly true since the resolution of the Ripper story barely makes a ripple whereas the film ends with an almighty splash that is sure to bring me back for the final film.This almighty splash is all the more important because for the most part the film moves quite slowly and every that occurs seems to be suggested between the words. This makes for a good tense atmosphere even if it doesn't exactly get the pulse racing. This slow burn is quite satisfying though and, like I said, with my understanding of the direction more in place, I found it more engaging. This isn't to say it is perfect though and I still am a little confused by the universal acclaim for this film and the 10 out of 10 gushing that many here on IMDb have delivered. The slow delivery adds to the feeling of a deep, complex tale which to be honest the material here doesn't fully support. Unlike the first film at least the pacing is better and I didn't feel like we were in a race but rather than it played out as it should, although having never read the books I am not sure if this came at a cost to the source material.The heavyweight cast certainly helps the film and they fit the serious tone of foreboding pretty well. I'm sure Considine has been bad at some point but not in my memory and certainly not here; he is convincing in his underplaying and he makes for an engaging lead. Morrissey, Carter, Harris, Pitts and others all fill out the cast really well, again with performances that fit the tone and pace of the film well. If there is a fault it is that they are all very uniform in their characters and there is perhaps too much consistency in the "grim op norf" performances, but still.1980 improves on the first film, partly by virtue of being better paced but also partly by the viewer (me) now having the context as to what the film is really about rather than what the plot summary suggests. It is grim and engaging even if it isn't the most thrilling and it ends with a very satisfying conclusion that will bring me back for the final film.

This is part 2 in the trilogy, also known as the "non-awaited sequel" to one of the most dreary and depressing films of all time. I did review the first part, and so, duly forewarned BY READING MY OWN REVIEW, I did indeed know what I was getting myself into, but I have always liked watching Paddy Considine work at his craft, and that was my reason for continuing. The story? Deep, dark, bleak, corruption in a police department that is itself located in one of the deepest and darkest parts of England. How bleak you ask?? Let me simply say that the main story, the corruption, is set against a narrative backdrop of a serial killer who is also known as the "Ripper" -- and that part of the story generally offers the viewer a refreshing and upbeat tempo change from the central theme. Note, BTW, how the number of IMDb members reviewing this second part has dropped dramatically from the first. This trilogy is almost a psychological marathon, and those who can't take the pain, or fear they may possibly do themselves harm, just fall by the wayside and wait for the Red Cross van to collect them. In my review of Part I, I noted that the ending, amazingly, redeemed the entire production. I wish I could say the same here, but, as I write this, they are removing my belt and shoelaces...

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.