don_quixote
Trent End
that one was even better, but, but, since they wrote george oldham out the tape where he taunts george hasnt changed but suddenly is bill molloy... uh
red riding films
- Thread starter don_quixote
- Start date
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I actually preferred the first. I suppose the director was a bit showy in the first one but also I thought a little more distinctive. I enjoyed the second episode a lot, once again though although I appreciated the brutal force of the climax it felt almost a bit of a let down after all the complex buildup. The close friend betraying Paddy Considine (sorry I'm terrible with names, half the time when I was watching it I didn't know who people were referring to) seemed to come completely out of the blue - perhaps I missed something but it almost felt like a bit of a cheat.
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
I'd disagree with Corpsey's assesment, I was hugely impressed by Thursday's episode. As the saying goes, it just stepped up a notch.
I was initially surprised when the guy who played Ian Curtis in 24hrPP (no idea of his real name) turned up as the liason cop, but he gave a really great performance, very sleazy and cynical and with a permanent undertow of nastiness. Loved the weird scene where Considine drives to the mining village and encounters the children. The part where they read out extracts from Sutcliffe's confessions was horribly chilling, wasn't it? As for the twist at the end, although it did work as a twist, there were a few little hints along the way that had at least put into my mind that this was a possible way it could go. Certainly had less problems with the ending than in last week's.
I was initially surprised when the guy who played Ian Curtis in 24hrPP (no idea of his real name) turned up as the liason cop, but he gave a really great performance, very sleazy and cynical and with a permanent undertow of nastiness. Loved the weird scene where Considine drives to the mining village and encounters the children. The part where they read out extracts from Sutcliffe's confessions was horribly chilling, wasn't it? As for the twist at the end, although it did work as a twist, there were a few little hints along the way that had at least put into my mind that this was a possible way it could go. Certainly had less problems with the ending than in last week's.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Last night was great, too. But it didn't explain something that puzzled from me Ep2. Why did the police commit that massacre at the karachi club?
Enjoyed last night's but there was quite a lot to digest. Wasn't 100% convinced by Jobson's sudden moralistic turn - saying sorry to Michael Myshkin and then killing Laws? Anyway, ep 1 was still my favourite. Maybe didn't seem to make as much sense as the later 2 but was dripping with atmosphere.
Now time to really get stuck into the books (I know, you should always read book before film especially when i read the Yorkshire Post editor has a grey beard and all I can visualise in my head is the bloody Post Office advert guy)
Now time to really get stuck into the books (I know, you should always read book before film especially when i read the Yorkshire Post editor has a grey beard and all I can visualise in my head is the bloody Post Office advert guy)
good question... some1 who's read the books fill me in as well
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I haven't seen the third one yet, but I thought they carried out the massacre in order to cover up that the journalist had killed sean bean (lol... names again!), because presumably there was a threat that somebody would have uncovered his reasons for doing it (the police protecting a child murderer etc)?
don_quixote
Trent End
john dawson, but actually derek box. plus they were running a porn ring werent they?
crackerjack
Well-known member
The cop pensioned off after the karachi shooting was involved in a porn ring (although I thought that came after he left the force). But how would that explain the massacre at the club?
Someone else suggested this as a motive, and it's the best reason i've heard (in reality, turning a shooting by a lone gunman into an organised massacre is a very poor way to cover it up and not one I'd advise any dissensians to follow).
edit: not the only ones struggling with parts of the plot, though i think I got more of it than this critic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/mar/20/last-nights-tv
don_quixote
Trent End
oooh i'll have to read the book again. the porn ring didn't seem to be a big thing in the films but it's a really big theme running through the books. pretty sure it's pre-karachi/strafford (it's strafford in the books. i dont understand the change). not seen the third film yuet either, planning on watching it later tonight.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I'm late on this, as i wanted to read the books before seeing the TV series. In fact I started with 1980 in the reading stakes, but then watched 1974 and 1980 last night, so it's all making a shadowy sort of sense to me right now...
I think the book and TV series make great companions however, as some things are Peace doesn't make explicit in 1980 come to the fore in the TV drama, and vice versa. I agree with some upthread that the barrage of detectives' names can become too much, and in reading the book I utterly missed that one of Hunter's assassins in the final scene was Murphy (his colleague from Manchester on the investigation team). But equally, I would have not been able to follow '1980' properly on TV without knowledge of the book, given how condensed it was and given how so much of the Ripper storyline was, er, sacrificed.
'1974' was excellent and chillling, I thought. Amazing sense of time and place - I was shocked to hear some critics comparing that sense to Corbijn's 'Control', which I thought created only an over-stylised and anodyne environment.
And Rebecca Hall is a quintissential new-skool babe. Too bad she ended up in a bad way.
Altogether, a triumph for TV, showing yet again that the small screen can produce riveting drama when used properly. I shall be checking the TV schedules more thoroughly in future.
I think the book and TV series make great companions however, as some things are Peace doesn't make explicit in 1980 come to the fore in the TV drama, and vice versa. I agree with some upthread that the barrage of detectives' names can become too much, and in reading the book I utterly missed that one of Hunter's assassins in the final scene was Murphy (his colleague from Manchester on the investigation team). But equally, I would have not been able to follow '1980' properly on TV without knowledge of the book, given how condensed it was and given how so much of the Ripper storyline was, er, sacrificed.
'1974' was excellent and chillling, I thought. Amazing sense of time and place - I was shocked to hear some critics comparing that sense to Corbijn's 'Control', which I thought created only an over-stylised and anodyne environment.
And Rebecca Hall is a quintissential new-skool babe. Too bad she ended up in a bad way.
Altogether, a triumph for TV, showing yet again that the small screen can produce riveting drama when used properly. I shall be checking the TV schedules more thoroughly in future.
Last edited: