Completely not what I expected after the first installment. This is not a continuation of a story but a separate story set in the same universe. The movie is still dark, but the nightmarish atmosphere is gone. Decent british cop drama about corruption.

I made the mistake of watching this episode of the trilogy first (I didn't know it was a trilogy). While it could serve as an independent film, it seems to expect me to know a thing or two about the first one with very little lead-in. It proceeds very much like a TV show with lots of talky parts and little action. This for the most part is fine, but since I didn't understand most of what was going on and had to infer a lot of facts, the buildup to this film's conclusion was a real let-down.

A step up from 1974. Again, not much of a serial killer movie (I guess I was led astray in that regard) but the corruption angle is much more intriguing, and the connections to the plot of the first movie are handled well. There's some genuine tension and Marsh is good at establishing mood. It wiped away a lot of the hesitation I felt about watching the whole trilogy. Still, although it's not quite as predictable as the first, there's nothing all that surprising here, nor anything too original.

The most effective parts of this film come at the beginning and at the end - the scenes which deal directly with the Yorkshire Ripper are absolutely chilling, probably because they are based in reality. Unfortunately, everything in between is bogged down with the same labyrinthine plot elements that I found tiresome in the first episode. Too many characters appear, without introduction, mumble a few lines, then disappear. It's hard to keep track and just ends up being frustrating.

79.000

"Proves that HBO has no monopoly on quality small-screen drama." - Nick Schager

On par with the first. Here, the story is more consistent and the conspiracy more intriguing, but the drama felt a little weaker and it's all presented in a very sober way. Still, I like the slightly depressing setting, it's appealing to my cynical side. These films don't show a world where the bad guys are winning, but one where they already did.

Not as good as the first episode. I hope the third one is better.

An improvement over the first installment.

Superior direction, acting, and cinematography to the first film. The weakness was the screenplay, which was unrealistic to say the least. Get beyond that, and it's a very good second installment.

Calling this second installment of the mini-series for its weak link is both tempting and somewhat harsh. It retains the complexity (or, if you will, convolutedness) but also tested my concentration and tried my patience. In the end, it seems too much like a random tv episode. Not so much uninspired as underwhelming.

Convincing period setting. Decent performances though again the accents seem more like an obstacle than anything else. The plot tends to do a lot of running in place, like most second installments of trilogies, before resolving too quickly and hurrying on to a decent denouement that the filmmakers seem to have more confidence in. Shows a TV-esque overreliance on music for mood though the score itself can be quite beautiful when it really cuts loose.

The Red Riding Trilogy mixes cynicism and sarcasm, pandering to the naiveté market no differently than Brick and Zodiac...

I liked Paddy Considine's character and performance in this, and because of that, I liked this best of the three films.

This is definitely a step up from the first. The camerawork is more restrained, and the narrative is more interesting. I appreciated the more complex journey of the lead character here, and Considine is always easy to watch.