Watch Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1974 For Free

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Great Film overall

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

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.

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.

I must have missed something while watching "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974" because I did not see a spectacular film as some tend to say about it. What I saw was a well made film but nothing so outstanding about a journalist trying to stop a serial killer who murdered little girls back in 1974. Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield) is a persistent yet very naive journalist trying to solve the case behind the disappearance of some girls from the surroundings. The more he goes with the story he'll find more and more trouble, to the point of having a strange tendency of getting punched by corrupt cops who don't want him near of the people who might know what's the truth behind the deaths. Haven't we seen that before?The film wasn't strong enough to make me feel deeply interested at certain parts (the course of Eddie's investigations are quite boring, so in order to lift things higher the director gives us lots of sex scenes, a little bit pointless but interesting to see, specially because Garfield is in all of that). It's very well made, well acted specially by Garfield and Sean Bean, who plays a powerful businessman. The historical reconstruction, art direction and costumes (the corny pants Andrew wears are priceless) are really good. But I'm a little saturated of plots like that, very surpriseless and very obvious. So, I made my point of what works in this piece. If you think you should see it go forward. It's up to you. Totally recommendable for fans of Garfield, Bean, Eddie Marsan, Peter Mullan, David Morrissey and others. 6/10

RED RIDING: IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1974 – CATCH IT ( B+ ) The Red Riding Trilogy caught my attention Once I heard about Andrew Garfield signed on to play Peter Parker in SpiderMan-Reboot. Red Riding is a mixture of the real events collaborating into factual events but nonetheless it's really enjoyable with all its creepiness. The movie starts off as young girls getting kidnapped and brutally murdered and it end up becoming more than just a Kidnapping, Murder mystery; it becomes more of a political Bonanza. Andrew Garfield is a Phenomena; I'm just amazed how ease and brilliant he is as an actor. You see an average looking geeky guy and when he acts he blows you away. I first saw him in "Boy A" and was literally stunned by his honest portrayal, it was just outstanding. Then I saw his comic timing in "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" which was another exciting experience. Now since he is making big waves through trailers of "Never Let Me Go" and "The Social Network", it was my pleasure to watch his gritty & Cookie side in "RED RIDING: IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1974", Andrew blew me away with his cockiness, grittiness and wickedness. Rebecca Hall is picture perfect yet again, she may not have a star power but nonetheless she is one of the talented British actresses around. Sean Bean & Robert Sheehan did a fine job. Overall a gritty and wicked movie which at times becomes too much to digest but maybe the novel was as complex as the movie was, a good attempt so I be watching the next two movies in Red Riding Trilogy as well, but sadly it doesn't have Andrew Garfield.