The production is British, and takes place in Yorkshire specifically. Ostensibly, the films are about a serial murder(s) that seems to not get caught. That is not what these movies are about. I was taken for a loop when I realized that this is actually a movie dealing with police corruption in Yorkshire. Which is fine, but, it wasn't marketed that way, so if you're expecting Hannibal you're going to have a dive a bit deeper into this review to see if you actually are interested.
Another misrepresented point is that this is based on a true story. Let's backtrack on that also, from what I now understand, only one movie is based on events surrounding a serial killer and very weakly at that. This is a work of complete fiction. For the most part it stays true to a realistic feel. The three movies, even though they are different in plot points and view points, seem to follow a similar story. I'll summarize each story..
The first movie is from the point of view of a journalist, played by Andrew Garfield, who looks into a series of missing cases and murders of little girls. All of this leads him to find a shady business man played by Sean Bean and his control over the police force. The journalist gets beaten for his investigation and retaliation ensues.
The second one deals with a Manchester detective that comes in to find who is killing these girls. All of these clues lead him to see how corrupt the Yorkshire police force really is. The detective gets harassed for his investigation and he sees how deep it all goes.
The third film deals with two viewpoints, one of a detective and a lawyer (called a solicitor). The detective is searching for a missing girl, while the lawyer is trying to find out why innocent people are being rounded up for murders. All of this leads the lawyer to find that the Yorkshire police force is corrupt. The detective gets midle harassed for the investigation. It all ends rather well.
Yeah... pretty similar-ish. With the first two being closest in tone. I'm harping on the negatives here, but each movie really does show off a scary group of people. The police have never looked dirtier than here. And you truly feel that the characters are trying to break through a wall or being broken by it. There is just one horrible police officer after the other. Not only are they negligent, but willfully evil. Maybe too much so. The first movie was spectacular, but the ending...it just didn't feel right. It did not fit the tone of the rest of the film, and it was a bit outlandish. The second film is the best one. It really goes foward in looking at what an utterly corrupt group looks like. It's also the most like a thriller. Finding out that it was directed by the same man as Man On Wire wasn't too surprising. The third one is probably the most watchable, because of the redemption felt at the end, but is about on par with the first one, due to some plot missteps and some confusing chronology.
The actors are all quite good and the directing was capable and even great at times. But the writing and editing needed some more work. If you have the time, I'd say, see the three movies. But if you only had time to see one, watch the second film. It's undoubtedly the tightest, but also the most depressing. There isn't too much you'll miss from the first. Ultimately, the movies were okay. I don't regret watching them, but there are better things out there.
0 comments:
Post a Comment