Allguns Allguns 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.

buddybhupender well i very eagerly started to see the first movie of this trilogy & really enjoyed it for good 30-35 minutes. i won't hover over the storyline or the direction because it is based on a book & the mood and settings of the story doesn't allow the director to experiment with the plot or screenplay sometimes so benefit of doubt goes with the director.i would like to throw light on my findings.well the speed of the movie is way too slow as the events take more emotional turns then the kind of genre the original book claims to be.With due respect to the author of the book what i mean to say is that if you are making/writing a suspense or crime drama you have to keep feeding your audience or readers with enough doses of shocks or twists every now and then; which is missing in plenty here. though i understand that every crime drama cannot be all about bloodshed with dozen murders to tell a tale but when i saw the movie my heart & mind were longing for elements which make a mystery movie tick in the minds of the audiences.i enjoyed the first half an hour but after that i kinda lost it..police is beating a journalist.. well if you want to scare someone why not hire a couple of pro's for it.. why give a hint that event the law is involved in this. A clever enemy never shows his identity. but if the main purpose of the book was to portray social & political background like corrupt lawmen & capitalistic industrialists then i would have seen the Blood Diamond, Syriana or something like that..but when i go for a suspense & crime movie well you can't overshadow the suspense shades of the story than emotional part there must be a balance which was missing according to me!! Another thing which seemed odd to me the very reason given by the main culprit in the climax just was not digestible because that was the very first reason which forced the lead character to begin his investigation so i am not complaining but i was shocked because i have read many fictions and never came across something so short & plain that it seems childish well again i know that the writer must have had his own reason & thought process to justify the events & their outcomes but they were not worth a movie making material.so for me it started on a good note but it disappointed me in the last one hour or so. It is a good reading material (the book)not for screen adaptation( at least this part)!!The lead actor has given a powerful performance but otherwise not much to do for others.I respect the original writer it was production company's shortsightedness to adopt the story for silver screen. watch it if you can handle out of the league movie with similar thought process story! my rating 6/10.

steven-222 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.)

Screen-7 In the DVD extras on this series, the director is reluctant to describe this series as "noir" but that's exactly how I'd describe it. It's not just average noir, it's inky black.If you like the noir genre, then rent this series right away. No need to even bother reading the reviews! This is spectacularly good noir.If you don't like noir, then stay clear of this series... you'll hate them.If you're new or ambivalent to the noir genre -- be warned that you won't be rewarded with even the dust of a warm fuzzy. But you will be rewarded with fantastic writing, layered story telling, great acting, quality cinematography, compelling characters and, simply, some of the best TV I've ever seen.Probably the only caveat are the Yorkshire accents which are heavy. I enjoy accents and usually have no trouble understanding them but it's not just the accents ... it's the grammar and vocabulary too. But, if you're fine with subtitles, then it's no problem.