indi Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Just watched the first one and I thought it was excellent, really, really good, the best British TV I've seen in a long time, up there with the very best American stuff, it wouldn't have been out of place in the cinema. The only thing I was a little disappointed by was that I really wanted it to turn out that: he did it - but he didn't and the plot was therefore a little obvious - because it reminded me so much of The Machinist, Angel Heart and Element of Crime. Still, it was a genuinely top class bit of drama, can't wait for the next one, which seems to have a lot of the same cast, but with the addition of Paddy Considine, so it might even be better!! If you didn't watch it then do so and make sure you're watching the next one on Thursday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davy_fulla Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I got to watch this last night but I shouldn't have as I was far too tired and found it hard to keep up with the story. Some questions for you Indi if you don't mind as I won't have chance to watch it again before the next one: Why were the coppers protecting Sean Bean? A simple case of paying them off while he done his dodgy business dealings? What was Sean Bean's wife on about when she was saying he had to find the others? Was it Sean Bean abducting the kids? If not then what did the abductions have to do with the plot? I know it sounds like I've missed the complete idea of the story but like I say I was very tired Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I got to watch this last night but I shouldn't have as I was far too tired and found it hard to keep up with the story. Some questions for you Indi if you don't mind as I won't have chance to watch it again before the next one: Why were the coppers protecting Sean Bean? A simple case of paying them off while he done his dodgy business dealings? I think so, that or there was some kind of Masons type thing going on, but they were working for him basically. What was Sean Bean's wife on about when she was saying he had to find the others? I'm not sure that that was resolved, perhaps it's something for one of the later episodes to deal with, but did you notice that the reporter bloke had a big red scar thing on his back about where the wings might have been, also Bean knew his dad, so I wondered if there was something like a child abuse ring going on and when she was talking about the others she was actually talking about him, rather than the dead kids. If so I think the mother he was shagging was one of those others. Was it Sean Bean abducting the kids? If not then what did the abductions have to do with the plot? I think that was the implication, but if that was the truth or just what they wanted you to think for now, I'm not sure. I know it sounds like I've missed the complete idea of the story but like I say I was very tired Answers in the spoiler thing above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davy_fulla Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Cheers fella. So this is a 3 parter then? I was thinking it was gonna be 3 separate stories for some reason. Should be good viewing as things start to get answered - especially with Paddy Considine in next week. I regard him as a legend after seeing Dead Man's Shoes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Cheers fella. So this is a 3 parter then? I was thinking it was gonna be 3 separate stories for some reason. Should be good viewing as things start to get answered - especially with Paddy Considine in next week. I regard him as a legend after seeing Dead Man's Shoes. Well that's what I thought too, but having read some reviews and looked at the website, I think that there are some links between the three parts including a number of common characters, don't think they are three parts of the same story, but rather three stories that take place in the same setting. Paddy C is a total legend, and I'm really looking forward to seeing him in this as well. Have you seen A Room for Romeo Brass? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Cheers fella. So this is a 3 parter then? I was thinking it was gonna be 3 separate stories for some reason. Should be good viewing as things start to get answered - especially with Paddy Considine in next week. I regard him as a legend after seeing Dead Man's Shoes. Well that's what I thought too, but having read some reviews and looked at the website, I think that there are some links between the three parts including a number of common characters, don't think they are three parts of the same story, but rather three stories that take place in the same setting. Paddy C is a total legend, and I'm really looking forward to seeing him in this as well. Have you seen A Room for Romeo Brass? He's absolutely class in A Room for Romeo Brass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 What is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 What is it? http://redriding.channel4.com/ http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/red-riding-yorkshire-noir-on-tv-1636631.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2009/mar/05/red-riding-david-peace And some more answers for davy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/mar/09/television-channel4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Cheers fella. So this is a 3 parter then? I was thinking it was gonna be 3 separate stories for some reason. Should be good viewing as things start to get answered - especially with Paddy Considine in next week. I regard him as a legend after seeing Dead Man's Shoes. Well that's what I thought too, but having read some reviews and looked at the website, I think that there are some links between the three parts including a number of common characters, don't think they are three parts of the same story, but rather three stories that take place in the same setting. Paddy C is a total legend, and I'm really looking forward to seeing him in this as well. Have you seen A Room for Romeo Brass? He's absolutely class in A Room for Romeo Brass. It's a class film all round. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davy_fulla Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Cheers fella. So this is a 3 parter then? I was thinking it was gonna be 3 separate stories for some reason. Should be good viewing as things start to get answered - especially with Paddy Considine in next week. I regard him as a legend after seeing Dead Man's Shoes. Well that's what I thought too, but having read some reviews and looked at the website, I think that there are some links between the three parts including a number of common characters, don't think they are three parts of the same story, but rather three stories that take place in the same setting. Paddy C is a total legend, and I'm really looking forward to seeing him in this as well. Have you seen A Room for Romeo Brass? Aye, I watched Romeo Brass after seeing Dead Man's Shoes. I didn't think the story was as good (ended a bit abruptly) but his part as the local mentalist was class. Took me a while to realise he was also in the final Bourne film. The reason I thought it was 3 separate stories was at the end of the last one when it showed the next episode there seemed to be a load of new characters but I suppose there were some characters the same and that would explain a link between the 3 parts. Should be interesting. Cheers for those links as well. The 'Did Anyone Understand Red Riding?' article has given me some comfort that I'm not totally thick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 It's three different stories, but with some of them overlapping in some areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 just finished watching this on 4oD ahead of the next one tomorrow. Top stuff on a sidenote, I would if Nixon got into this sort of shit as a journalist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingkerouac Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 The TV 'Trilogy' is based on the written 'Quadrology'. They're missing out '1977' which kind of means that a lot of the characterisation is a bit simplified. I liked it, but I think the reason a lot of people were confused, was because they have shaved and shaved important action and dialogue to make it fit the TV timings. Shame, but still far better than most TV. Did anyone see that 'Horne & Corden'? What absolute shite!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Just watched the first one and I thought it was excellent, really, really good, the best British TV I've seen in a long time, up there with the very best American stuff, it wouldn't have been out of place in the cinema. The only thing I was a little disappointed by was that I really wanted it to turn out that: he did it - but he didn't and the plot was therefore a little obvious - because it reminded me so much of The Machinist, Angel Heart and Element of Crime. Still, it was a genuinely top class bit of drama, can't wait for the next one, which seems to have a lot of the same cast, but with the addition of Paddy Considine, so it might even be better!! If you didn't watch it then do so and make sure you're watching the next one on Thursday. It got a good write up in Sight and Sound last month. There was a cinema showing at the bfi before it was on tv.... http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49519 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Good, but not as good as last week's. I really liked the directorial style of the other one, this one was done pretty much by the book and it subsequently didn't have the atmosphere and didn't draw me in to the same extent. Still, I'm looking forward to the next episode none the less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I really enjoyed the second one. It would have been boring if all three had been done in exactly the same style, though there's a lot in the production design that was common to both of them and will presumaby be the same in part III. Having expected it to be a separate story though set in the same "universe" with some of the same people, it came as a genuine surprise when it suddenly broadened out to add a piece to the puzzle of part I. I'm really, really, really looking forward to the third one now. Must order the books, too... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhg Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Must order the books, too... The Guardian are doing an offer on them at the moment. http://www.stourvalleyoffers.com/bk102-gua1 Watched around half of the second last night before I went out and I was enjoying it more than the first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 FEARS GROW THAT RED RIDING MAY HAVE BEEN SHIT FEARS were growing last night that the landmark television series Red Riding may have been a lot of shit. Hailed as a return to event TV, the three-part drama was described by critics as dark, brooding, grim, bleak, pessimistic, hopeless, harrowing, tragic, nightmarish but mainly Yorkshire. However, this initial enthusiasm has been tempered by the growing realisation that someone had forgotten to include a plot and that no one could really understand what anyone was talking about, or what the hell was going on. Julian Cook, an accountant from Bexhill, said: "It was so authentic, sometimes you felt you could smell the warm beer and black pudding sandwiches, which was helpful because although there was talking, no recognisable sounds were coming out. "I thought I heard a policeman say 'This is the north son, we do what we like', but I couldn't have as that would just have been a terrible, terrible cliché. Apart from that though it may as well have been two hours of dolphin chatter." His wife Alice said: "I found it easy to follow. Sean Bean killed the girls and then opened up a carpet warehouse on top of an old Indian burial ground. "The police and his wife knew he was a serial paedophile murderer but did nothing about it because it was the Seventies. But this reporter Eddie did, and he had a map on the wall and pictures of dead girls which he drew arrows on, and a Vauxhall Viva. "But then the police tortured Eddie and killed his girlfriend so it would drive Eddie mad, so he would kill Sean Bean, which you think they could have done themselves if they really wanted to. "But in revenge Eddie got this dossier on police corruption, which another reporter had drawn up before he was murdered by the police, and then he gave it to the police who obviously burnt it. 'Actually no, you're right, that does sound like a lot of shit." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Must order the books, too... The Guardian are doing an offer on them at the moment. http://www.stourvalleyoffers.com/bk102-gua1 Watched around half of the second last night before I went out and I was enjoying it more than the first. Cheaper on play.com apart from 1983 which I ordered from Waterstones; who reckon that the publishers haven't got any and I'm going to have to wait, so I might see if the Grauniad actually have some. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Just watched the third.. and watched the other two. I'm somewhat underwhelmed and not sure what was going on throughout. Someone explain why that was meant to be really good please? Oh.. and what actually happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Just watched the third.. and watched the other two. I'm somewhat underwhelmed and not sure what was going on throughout. Someone explain why that was meant to be really good please? Oh.. and what actually happened. Thought they were fantastic myself. I already told you what was going on. I got to watch this last night but I shouldn't have as I was far too tired and found it hard to keep up with the story. Some questions for you Indi if you don't mind as I won't have chance to watch it again before the next one: Why were the coppers protecting Sean Bean? A simple case of paying them off while he done his dodgy business dealings? I think so, that or there was some kind of Masons type thing going on, but they were working for him basically. What was Sean Bean's wife on about when she was saying he had to find the others? I'm not sure that that was resolved, perhaps it's something for one of the later episodes to deal with, but did you notice that the reporter bloke had a big red scar thing on his back about where the wings might have been, also Bean knew his dad, so I wondered if there was something like a child abuse ring going on and when she was talking about the others she was actually talking about him, rather than the dead kids. If so I think the mother he was shagging was one of those others. Was it Sean Bean abducting the kids? If not then what did the abductions have to do with the plot? I think that was the implication, but if that was the truth or just what they wanted you to think for now, I'm not sure. I know it sounds like I've missed the complete idea of the story but like I say I was very tired Answers in the spoiler thing above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Right then.. A) I thought that Sean Bean was killed in the first episode? Is his role ever really explained apart from being someone with the power of the police on his side? B) That reporter was killed 'in a car accident' I think it was said in this third part which was obviously a cover up as we saw him drive into the lights at the end.. but was his relation to the abductions clarified like you thought he was involved? C) What was with that queer lad that survived and tried to kill the priest at the end? He was a source of information throughout, so I'm guessing he was being abused.. is that right? D) That priest was hardly mentioned throughout.. was he behind the abductions all along? Maybe a load of it went over my head but it all seems a bit too open to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Vastly over rated. Since when does anyone in 'the north' go harping on about it fucking constantly. Juvenile and shit dialogue. Television is so shit now if something mediocre comes along people rave about it like the Sistine Chapel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Right then.. A) I thought that Sean Bean was killed in the first episode? Is his role ever really explained apart from being someone with the power of the police on his side? Basically there were two dodgy groups involved, both groups had a number of core members who were the same and then a few others who were only in one and not the other. The first group was the one behind the property deal (the shopping mall) which was mainly made up of coppers with the newspaper editor, John Dawson (Bean) and a couple of others. The second group was the peado ring lead by the priest, with Dawson, some of the coppers (I think) and containing a load of the fathers from that estate, who allowed their kids to be abused by the rest, particularly whoever was "king" at that point. Bean was in both groups, but then the property group found out about him being involved in the other stuff and decided that they needed to get rid of him to protect their investment and wound the reporter up until went and did their dirty work for them. I think the priest was definitely the driving force behind the murders, but Bean may have been involved also. B) That reporter was killed 'in a car accident' I think it was said in this third part which was obviously a cover up as we saw him drive into the lights at the end.. but was his relation to the abductions clarified like you thought he was involved? His dad was one of the paedo ring, remember in the first one when he met Bean in the car after the funeral and Bean showed him he was wearing one of his dad's suits? He said he knew him. Also remember how he didn't get on with his dad? Also remember he had a for love scar? The reporter was one of the victims, I think he must have repressed the memories a bit. C) What was with that queer lad that survived and tried to kill the priest at the end? He was a source of information throughout, so I'm guessing he was being abused.. is that right? Yeah, he was one of the victims, just like the reporter and the lawyer. D) That priest was hardly mentioned throughout.. was he behind the abductions all along? Yep, he was the ringleader of the paedo ring. Maybe a load of it went over my head but it all seems a bit too open to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Just saw the first ep. Stunningly ambitious. Looking forward to the next one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now