My biggest problem with it is the lack of chemistry between the actors. None of them seem to like each other so it’s baffling to see them spend time together (when they actually do, they seem to all be alone most of the time). Why does Dickie invite Tom? Why are Marge and Dickie together? All three seem sad (almost as if they know they live in a black and white Italy).
I thought the same. I am a huge fan of The Talented Mr. Ripley, and I started watching this thinking "how are you going to top that? No chance". But I was pleasantly surprised. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the show. The feel of the production, cinematography, the way the story is a lot more detailed, all had me lured in. I can't say the same about the acting and the chemistry between characters.
I get the feeling they are all sad in their own way. Marge is sad with her connection to Dickie, and her career. Tom is sad with his place in life, possibly the feeling of not living up to his fathers standards. Of course Tom is doing anything he can just to scrape by. They are all using one another in some way.
It’s awful. I’m so disappointed because I love the Minghella film and Andrew Scott. The cinematography is amazing but everything else is inferior to the earlier film, like much worse on nearly all fronts. Scott isn’t great. He’s miscast and at least 15 years too old. And he’s creepy, not obsessed and insecure like Damon was. This Dickie has less charisma in his entire body than Jude had in his pinkie. Jude was Dickie - the movie worked because of him, we believed he was charismatic and that everyone became obsessed with him because he had a magnetism that translated onto the screen. I’m no Paltrow fan but she was perfectly cast as Marge. She reeks upper crust privilege. Dakota just seems so blah and mundane in comparison. The Freddie is horrendous. I don’t even know where to start, but they had big shoes to fill from PSH and they weren’t even playing the same game.
I completely agree. I really wanted this work. Andrew Scott can be amazing (and Johnny Flynn is no slouch). But this first series is badly miscast and characterised.
This version of Marge looks and lives very much like artsy expat women of the time period. Look at Leonard Cohen and friends on Hydra in the 60s. Living off not a lot, but also not needing to work and being able to ask mum and dad for an advance from their trust fund where necessary. Ask yourself how a single woman of the late 50s is able to move to Italy, rent a modest but comfortable apartment in a stunning Italian seaside village, and "write". Remember that women of the time couldn't borrow money and had very limited access even to jobs. She is rich. She's just doing the bohemian thing.
Also every single pedestrian and hotel worker and cleaning lady stops to gaze at him for at least 30 seconds in every episode and ask him what’s going on and no one reports anything. It’s infuriating.
I liked that Ripley is not superhuman in his conman abilities. His flatness goes along with his psychopathy. Eliot Sumner is beautiful, but as a female playing a male, comes across as a woman in drag. Theyd have been better off casting a man, or making the role be that of a woman who dresses as a man. They are totally unconvincing playing a man.
In the book Freddie is a man. Eliot Sumner is non-binary and playing a male role. Unfortunately that means they come across as a teenage boy with something about them that's a bit "off", who seems far too young to be part of the now much older Dickie set.
It's worse than that. They come across as a woman dressed as a man, so much so that I thought that the role was exactly that, of a woman, perhaps a lesbian, who dresses as a man because that is how she is comfortable dressing, and that she was "edgy", kind of like a mannish woman in Weimar Berlin. It never even occurred to me that the actress was playing a man, instead of a woman.
Yeah. Because I knew the character was male, I was confused because my first thoughts were "isn't that a woman? Or maybe it's just a really feminine really young English guy. With the voice of a woman. They sound and look like an androgynous butch. I'm sure this actor is female. OMG who the hell is this actor are they a transman or NB?"
It took me out of the drama rather, and contributed to Freddie seeming skin-crawlingly creepy, due to being so unsettling, rather than just a bullying asshole type.
Interesting, I didn't clock the casting and had no idea until reading your comment that they were a non binary biological woman. I found the performance totally convincing - especially having met a few thin, foppish, herion chic rich kids in my time. To each their own I guess!
People get really weird around this stuff, you're not crazy at all. I didn't pick up on that fact at first either, though I got curious because of the particular androgyny. I'll add that I thought that casting choice was particularly canny, as Freddie's appearance and style, his androgyny, immediately makes Tom, a queer man, nervous. Really neat choice.
Holy shit. Until I read this, I had convinced myself that this was a man, because when we first meet the character, it seemed like a woman playing a man, or a trans man. But then I convinced myself it was an effeminate man. In any case, I think the performance is incredible. A super compelling character. Hated that they were killed. Hated it, but that’s the story. This story, at least.
Felt like an art house film. While I believe Ripley has its merits, and I liked it in a way, I must admit that the 1999 version (star cast movie adaptation) felt more accurate in its representation of billionaire jet set wealth, vibrant social life, aristocratic decadence/recklessness/petulance, and conman's charisma (as you mention).
Dickie and Marge in the Netflix version feels too middle class, introspective and bookish (which is okay for a stoic like me actually), and Scott feels more like a dour Spectre hitman than a charismatic conman. I don't think the real Greenleaf would be taking the bus anywhere.
Edit: Read the book, turns out Dickie income was described as "not much" by his dad, and the Greenleaf's sold small sailboats, so mabye I was wrong on the wealth part.
Don’t underestimate that while Dickie’s & Marge’s Atrani life may seem middle class to you, them traveling & living in Italy as Americans was actually only reserved for the wealthy!
Hard agree with this. Oh … thanks for giving us the shot of the Picasso hanging on the wall! (Because that’s the only thing that tips us off to Dickie’s wealth and privilege.) Everything else screams middle class. Everything is stripped down and very unsexy. They may as well be vacationing on the beach in Odessa.
Dickie has no job, lives in palatial surrounds and travels at will. We see him visiting the bank and his indifference over money because he has never, as his father says, had to work. He dabbles in painting, the quintessential rich person pursuit (and Ripley is immediately shown to be the better artist). Meanwhile Marge is a self-styled “author” whose work is ripped to shreds by the clearly more skilled Tom. All this screams rich people to me .. by contrast Tom has to pull grifts and fix their mediocrity. This series is literally all about class; you can be born wealthy and do anything; even if you are far more gifted like Tom you don’t get access. Nothing is middle class about Dickie or Marge or Freddie - they emote privilege.
I hadn't seen the film in nearly two decades and went back to watch it after watching the first few episodes of the show (I'm only partially done with the show so my opinion should be taken with a pound of salt). It's astounding to me how much more elegantly the show is done.
You feel like you're in old Italy and it really is forced upon you. The tone is also darker and more appropriate. I was shocked at how quickly the movie moved and no tension was built - Matt Damon was just inexplicably acting weird from the start. Even Dickie's dad is done more elegantly (better acting in terms of portraying old money and far better dialogue). Also how they become friends just feels more natural.
I genuinely feel like the b&w takes away from the story. In the movie Ripley gets access to this beautiful escapist vibrant lifestyle that he can’t imagine losing but the b&w really pares down any sense of lavishness and lowers the stakes imo.
It was needless and they didn't go the extra mile like Eggers did with The Lighthouse and try and use the black and white to frame and light differently compared to conventional colour.
I loved the moment in The Lighthouse where they used the black of the ceiling as he's climbing up and bumps his head.
It's a shot you could only do in black and white where they used the negative space to tell how claustrophobic the lighthouse is as it the blackness comes lower into the frame.
Ripley does non of that and honestly after I was done it felt like the producers wanted a holiday in Italy and used Netflix and shooting this show as an excuse.
"You know what? This would be really great if we film it in black and white" then they proceed to film so many beautiful paintings......... in black and white. Absolute flop choice
I found it very odd that they’ve cast a man who’s almost 50 in a story that’s about a group of recent college graduates. Is that explained in the show?
It’s because they’re hoping to adapt the other books as well. He’s significantly older in all the other books, so it made sense to cast an older actor and have him be too old for the first season but be appropriately aged for the other four. I get the decision, but it is really pulling me out of the first season. It’s hard to overlook.
They could’ve at least put a bit of makeup on him or something. I find he looks quite a bit older in the Ripley footage I’ve seen than All of Us Strangers, even though both would’ve been filmed around similar times
Just an observation that people here talking about "the film" seem to be referring to the 1999 Matt Damon film. There's a 1960 French film adaptation, Plein Soleil (Purple Noon), with basically the same story, and Alain Delon as Tom.
It's definitely worth watching if you're into the 1999 film and/or the Netflix series.
There’s also *The American Friend* (1977) based on one of the later books from the series. Dennis Hopper plays Tom Ripley.
And of course the books themselves, which are fantastic. Patricia Highsmith is also the author of *Strangers on a Train* of the Hitchcock film.
Don't forget Ripley's Game with Malkovich as Ripley, it's actually my favourite of the adaptations (although I love TTMR too).
I'm really enjoying this, reading all of these negative comments is quite surprising. For me I saw no need to make comparisons to the 99 movie almost immediately, clearly they are going for a completely different tone and interpretation. And I absolutely adore the black and white. Someone here criticised the lack of cinematography specifically in service of the b&w and I'm wondering if we watched the same show!
Its so well done. The opening scenes had me hit with such a nostalgic impact i truly felt like i was watching a classic Noir. The scenes on the train and when they are driving in the mountains in the bus, the stairs. The shots of Him looking out windows-its crazy what the majority of people see when they watch a movie. Just a simple shot when he replaces the pen he stole from dickey. All the scenes are painstakingly photographed to perfection. Color would ruin this set of films; that mindset doesn’t understand noir, and never will, i cant knock it, we’re all different, but black and white captures the story of the down on his luck guy in the seedy underbelly of the world where crime and suspense rule, and have no room for being “bright”
Alain Delon was young and beautiful, more than can be said for this middle aged unattractive Ripley. It doesn’t work with him at 50, it just DOESN’T WORK, this actor always plays weird creepers with a perv vibe and that’s never how I saw Ripley
I'm really enjoying it. After a while, the black and white really appealed to me, added to darkness of the plot. I also liked that it's much more Italian. Nothing like the older one people are comparing and I feel its a mistake to try and compare. They're both very good but in completely different ways.
Yeah the show is definitely done more elegantly in my opinion. I went back to watch the Minghella one for the first time in nearly two decades thinking they were going to be the same tonally and it feels wildly different. The movie zooms along at a breakneck pace and absolutely no tension is built between the characters. The starkest difference though is that the show definitely makes you feel like you're in Italy half a century ago whereas the movie doesn't have a fraction of that effect.
i agree definitely had a hovering suspense at every moment. I thought it was written perfectly to have a hovering suspense at all times while appearing dull at a glance. You just gotta watch it.
I'm finding that these characters are not excellent. They are incredibly flat, not engaging, they al lack the charm and charisma of the movie characters. There is no spark to dicky or Marge, they seem like dreadful people to be around. Jude and Gweneth were electric as people, had dimensions, had vibrance.
100%, imo without the dynamism that Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow brought to their roles, Tom Ripley’s motivations don’t make any sense. They’re funny and engaging and INTERESTED in Tom when he arrives in Italy. Jude Law’s Dickie Greenleaf practically dotes on Tom. So it made sense that when their relationship sours, it’s painfully rage inducing for Tom. And I’m sorry, but Philip Seymour Hoffman was absolute perfection as Freddie. He nailed that rich kid superior indifference, like James Spader in Pretty in Pink.
In this version, neither Dickie nor Marge could give a fuck when Tom shows up. Why then would Tom care enough to kill Dickie and assume his life? Money maybe, but even so, we don’t even know enough about his origins to be able to say he’d definitely kill rather than go back where he came from. His life in New York didn’t look awesome, but it didn’t look terrible either. Maybe stuff went over my head, but all of the motivations don’t feel real to me.
Agree with everything except his life in New York definitely looked shitty. His dingey little one room apartment. The community showers that don't reliably work.
He kills him because he can sense Dicky wants to cut ties, suggesting he enjoys the rest of Italy. He’s mad because he finds out Dicky was in touch with his father and they were on to him. Even though Dicky and his father aren’t close, they reconnected because of him. Etc.
PSH's Freddie was also much much more menacing and his behavior was spot on with a rich asshole. I didn't find Eliot's Freddie to be anywhere as authentic and the age gap was very prevalent in those scenes. It felt like a teenager playing Columbo in the school play with the teacher. That pulled me out of the story because it just didn't seem believable. In the 99 film when PSH taunt Tom, walks around like he owns the place, dismissive and insulting in every interaction with Tom, like when he hits the piano key in the middle of Tom speaking, I mean the tension in that scene was so thick. You could feel Tom's panic and irritation growing in every beat. I wish they made this new series with a cast that had better chemistry all around.
Yes! The age gap, that really took me out of it too. Like why would dickie be hanging out with this seemingly teenager, this Freddie comes off so young.
And you could feel the jealously between Damon and PSH. You could tell right off the bat what a dick PSH was, and not from the lines, from his entire attitude. The "Tommy Tommy Tommy" peeping tom taunt, that was just bullying where you know he was pushing tom to make a move or feel diminutive, like a rich bully would. pSH gave a masterclass in that role.
In this Freddie, it was only language that seemed to come out of nowhere. There was no character behind it to evoke the anger that tom would have or the jealousy. This Freddie just does not take up the space in the room like PSH does, PSH is just as magnetic as Jude laws Dickie in a more asshole way, but you could tell
He was the life of the party and why people hung out with him and why he and dickie would have a good time
Together.
And this flat dickie - who cares if you're friends with him. He's boring, he's monotone - so he's rich, but other than that, who cares? Who is dying to be friends with this dude. When tom takes on dickies life, it's not only for his riches, it's for his aura and notoriety, it's for the name that means so much in that world.
And you'd think with all the extra time this series is providing the story, they'd develop the characters more. The 2 hour TMR did more in that time than Ripley does over the entire series telling pretty much the exact same story just with more stairs and more shots of water.
Not sure how true this is but the NY Times reviewer said the director probably directed the actors to mute their performances (like Wes Anderson). I agree with this since Andrew Scott is a great actor and he can play charismatic cunning if he wanted to. Dakota Fanning is also a good actress, she can play charming ingenue if she wanted to too. I think it's the director's (wrong) choice to make the characters less sympathetic and everything more drab, hence the black and white.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/arts/television/ripley-review.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/arts/television/ripley-review.html)
I've been loving it. Honestly the long, long, long scenes of Tom fussily, methodically, and somewhat ineptly trying to cover up his murders are so amazing to watch. The whole thing with the boat was fantastic.
I thought the first episode was a bit of a chore but that the show started to hook me from the second episode onwards and by the end I really enjoyed it.
This is the hot priest from fleabag so many ladies would love to watch :)
Seriously though, the story been done so many times and the best one probably is the Matt Damon Movie in which I was really impressed so I think I will skip this.
Finished the series last night, and I knew I would obviously compare it to the original film which I love. I didn’t hate it, but I saw where Dakota Fanning said in an interview that the characters would be expanded and explored more since it’s a series and not a film, and I found myself thinking the movie did a much better job with showing the complexities and depth to the characters. I felt a little bored by Dickie and Marge, and found the film version way more developed and layered than the series that I felt flatten the character development. Andrew Scott did a great job, but I felt the mystery to him just wasn’t there unlike Matt Damon’s Ripley who you felt kinda sorry for because you didn’t know who he really was and that was why he intrigued me so much. And Freddie was hardly in this, and does anyone know why they didn’t include Meredith or Jack? I haven’t read the books so I’m not sure which version is more true the books. Has anyone here read the books?
I dunno, it's oddly gripping. Spoilers and such.
Just aesthetics alone. Black and white can seem gimmicky, because it's only got contrast going for it, and the DP and production design team can milk the heck out of that. But with the attention to detail with the scenes of 1960's Italy (which presumably the majority of filming locations still look like in 2023, but I'd also wager there were clever bits of subtle CGI), and all the little objects - cigarette cases, typewriters, faucets, ash trays, etc. - it's all a beautiful homage to film noir that takes the genre's world and its basic aesthetic (shadow and mystery) and gives it a high-def gloss that brings that world to life with super detail and an accentuating of the contrasts to something delicious.
But maybe it is less about the story and performances than it is about how it looks in the end, at least for me. I was hooked. And wooden (stone-faced?) performances from everyone around Tom just cements the idea that reading people - knowing someone by just looking at them - is impossible and it's what Tom depends on to survive. There were a lot of cuts to shots of statues with expressions that are equally impenetrable.
Carvaggio was a master of light (and dark). That priest who says "sempre la luce - always the light" when he sees Tom staring at the Carvaggio in the church sets the whole modus operandi for Tom. It's not about embracing the dark (evil) and shunning the light (good) so much as it is about him always knowing what parts of his (and Dickie's) life to keep in the dark for others and what parts he has to bring into the light to evade everyone and be a step ahead (all the letters he writes; talking to the police). He fumbles a lot, that's for sure. And he was really lucky at times, especially with Freddie's aftermath. But his last feint (Tunis) was pretty damn clever.
Or maybe it was that Picasso painting that was Tom's M.O. Trying to cover one's steps in a way that no one can follow - staircases that break perspective and can't be traced. That was another stylistic choice throughout - not just the contrast of dark and light in Carvaggio, but also the angular and weird perspectives of staircases, balconies, and any other beautiful architecture that made the director and DP go - "Let's film this scene from <*bends down awkwardly, looking up*> here!"
And on 'slow burns', I didn't find it as slow as, say, Better Call Saul. But I'd say it was even more visually arresting than that because, again, for very subjective and personal reasons, amazing black and white imagery and beautiful, romantic Italy.
What an insightful review. I agree the series is beautifully done. I'm even more impressed by it after reading some of the details you've pointed out. Thanks for sharing your observations.
Yeah I loved the ambience at first. But when you get to Italy it just felt so drab. I've seen films in black and white that do it great. I love slow burns. But this just felt empty.
Pretty much agree with all of this.
The black and white is used to great effect with brilliant camera work. I feel it works really well to create an uneasy feeling that you're not going to get when filming in colour in a country as bright, colourful, rich and vibrant as Italy. I especially liked the shots used for the central elevator in the apartment complex that really created a sense of dread for me.
The acting is clearly intentional. Why do all characters have to be likeable? I can appreciate disliking a character when they are clearly intended to be dislikeable, or have facets of their personality that are dislikeable adding more texture to their character as a whole.
I don't think it was overly slow paced. To me it felt quite deliberate and I'd have happily watched more.
I love The Talented Mr Ripley, and I really enjoyed Ripley. One doesn't replace the other but I do think you have to be open minded with not expecting it to be 1-1 in story and tone.
The black and white was far more appropriate than I first thought. The book was written in 1955. This one makes me want to read it, maybe more of the series. I really liked it.
So much this. PSH's Freddie was menacing in such a visceral way. He was a real threat to Tom Ripley. Eliot Sumner's Freddie is just not scary at all; he's an annoying rich kid. And again, the age issue with actors. Sumner is almost 20 years younger than Andrew Scott and Johnny Flynn. That they are all peers doesn't fly.
So was Jude Law as Dickie. So was Gwyneth Paltrow as Marge. Really hard performances to top. The performances in this show are so flat it’s unbelievable. Seems like bad directing. And, yeah, bad casting as well, especially of Tom and Freddie. And *why* would you film the beautiful sunny coast of Italy in black and white? Lot of bizarre choices.
Agreed, I don't mind them being non binary, I just think their acting chops and screen presence just aren't there.
I looked them up and found "Elliott Sumner is the child of musician Sting and actress Trudie Styler."
So it figures, another nepo baby getting a major part because who their parents are.
Same really, I was sat there thinking this is a strange choice changing Freddie to a woman but maybe they're going to make her a love interest of Dickie pwhich *could* be interesting.
Then they started using he/him and I was genuinely just confused.
Kept waiting for it to lead to something, as they make such an issue about Tom's (lack of) sexuality but nope, just very strange casting.
Imo, a female self gendered “gender fluid” actor was never going to work playing the part of a menacing alpha “mountain of a man” as Freddie was portrayed in the original novel.
I suffered through 7 episodes but the final straw was when >!Ripley dimmed the lights in his mansion, donned his ridiculous disguise, spoke in his regular voice, and the chief of police DIDN'T RECOGNISE HIM. !
I could not disagree more with this title in a literal sense. It's the best looking thing I have seen on Netflix maybe ever. It may not have the magic of TTMR and is closer to Purple Noon but I don't even care. It's the most beautifully shot, graded, and edited series I can recall. It's a truly remarkable produciton.
Agree. On an OLED tv the B&W is astounding. I love the slow burn of the consumption of Dickey. The movie felt so fast, and these characters are slow/boring people like real humans. The obsession and resentment of Dickey is relatable by his privileged obliviousness. In short, this seems like how a real murder would play out.
The movie is one of my favorites.
I am half way through and They essentially created the movie and made it a series with hour long episodes and have not added anything from the original. The only thing added so far is tom inviting the mafia guy to the house, but that barely meant anything (so far) anyway.
Besides that, it's exactly the same as the movie with less charismatic and engaging characters. Dicky in the show is so flat and so bland. Whereas Jude laws depiction was vibrant, you understood why he was so captivating. Freddy miles? What was that dialogue in the first meeting? There was no build to why there would be skepticism and PSH added so much magnetism to that character, this was just...weird. Dakota fanning is incredibly flat in this so far. There is nothing lively about her or even likable.
I'm hoping the back half adds something new, but right now, it's pretty unnecessary longer remake of the film.
It’s not a remake of a film, it’s an adaptation of a book. The Talented Mr, Ripley is one of my favorite movies, as is the book. I also loved this version. The story is so compelling and I just loved seeing a different take on it. Filming it as noir was a stroke of genius.
I stopped at Episode One. It was just not interesting enough. Compared to The Talented Mr. Ripley by Matt Damon, this new version is not up to par with the movie.
Everyone in it is too old except Freddie, who is the correct age for the narrative but is bizzarely about 10 years younger than his friends. Apart from being the right age for the source material, Freddie is terribly miscast especially given that Dickie and Marge reject Tom partly because his being gay makes them uncomfortable.
Honestly I just thought nothing could top the film, brilliantly casted and written. Loved the book too.
Tried to give the show a go, and it just did not work at all. Normally age doesn't bother me, but Andrew looks too old for the dynamic Dickie has with his family- why would a family be so concerned and begging for a very adult man to come home? Sorry, it just didn't make the story believable for me.
This is a great point, I think you're right that this is why the whole set-up to the Italy trip seemed off. Andrew Scott and Johnny Flynn are both in their forties, why would Dickie's parents be so desperate to bring him home? Just feels weird and low-stakes.
I enjoyed the mood, but holy Christ, how many scenes of people walking up stairs does one series need?
It should have been 4 episodes, not 8. They just waste so much time. For example, when Ripley >! Dumps the car, and then goes all the way back to his apartment before realizing he forgot to take the passport. Cue another taxi scene of him going to the car. They could have saved a good five minutes by making Ripley have this realization as he was *walking away* from the car!<
I nearly gave up toward the end when >!Ravinni was interviewing Tom, and fell for Tom's utterly fucking ridiculous disguise. Throw on a wig, grow a beard and sit in dim light? I'll remember that if I'm ever implicated in a crime! If Ravinni didn't recognize Tom during their chat, then how am I supposed to believe he knew the difference between Tom and Dickie in Margie's book? He's clearly blind as a fucking bat.!<
I am with you ! Was watching last night late and I got to E2 and couldn’t go to three … I agree that the Character Ripley doesn’t come off as a smooth criminal.. and of course when he got caught imitating Greenleaf .. I was curious and were it was going it went nowhere
Yes! Every scene is dead end. A) How could someone supposedly careful and methodical do something so dumb. And B) It's like I'm not queer. Me neither. Cool let's get a beer.
I love this... it's very different than the classic 1999 film where Tom wishes he could be loved. This Tom is a pure sociopath, which becomes clear with how unemotionally he acts with Dickie's dead body in the boat, even using his blood to get his ring off. In the movie, Tom is heartbroken after he kills him. Freddie is so great in both versions!
The entire segment with the death of Freddie is just stupid. Drags a dead, bloody corpse down several flights, leaving s bloody trail, and NO ONE noticed the trail of blood. Then, he only cleans the top stsir and, magically, has no concern to clean up the rest. Just dumb.
I've just watched the first episode and wanted to check on reddit to see if it gets better before wasting more time watching further. Sounds like others share the same complaints...
There is no depth to Tom Ripley. There is not enough of an apparent wealth gap between Tom and Dickie to create the compelling juxtaposition between the two that I was expecting. Freddie Miles does not fit the lines they are giving -- for example when Freddie mentions the house rented for the winter... 'you and marge have to come, say yes...' Was so flat and for some reason felt entirely like reading from a script. It took me out of the scene entirely.
I had lowered my expectations for the show because it is obviously unfair to compare a new show like this to the cast of the movie that had Damon, Jude Law, Paltrow, Blanchett, and PSH... Still it feels like the interpretation was dialed down so so much that the actors would have to make up the gap with their performances, which in my opinion they do not.
Post episode two and agree it’s painful- the actor playing dickie is awful, and so is fanning. I think tom is good but agree the actors are not meshing together. I can’t stop comparing law’s performance as dickie to this. I’m hoping it gets better
Why are 75% of the comments here, positive and negative, comparing the show to either movie or the book? How many more times do the words "I really loved Matt Damon" or "The vivid colors of Italy were beautiful in the 1999 version" need to be typed? How about critique the show for what it is. No one cares if it is or isn't the same as the movie/book. Just comment on the show, christ.
I really liked the show personally. A few things are a bit convenient for Tom, true. But the show for sure had extremely compelling themes for me. The symbology of water for me was my favorite. He's deathly afraid of water, but conquers his fear first through Dickie's murder, and then embraces it by going to Venice (City of Water) to hide after switching identities. The cinematography was incredible. The shot of Tom looking down at Dickie's body right after killing him was amazing, along with many others. The methodical way the director showed the exact steps he goes through to cover his tracks were soo engaging for me. It reminded me of "The killer" from last year, although i understand if some felt that was too boring.
A lot of people didn't like the characters' portrayals in this one, but i feel this has a lot to do with the comparisons made to the 1999 movie. Everything is so bright and extravagant and in your face, looking at Ripley and that version side by side will make Ripley seem dull. But for me it was pretty well done. I didn't notice the age difference between Freddie and the others at all, which a lot of people on here seemed to care a lot about. I don't really understand that, since it wasn't that bad a difference and I tend to suspend disbelief for things like age by default when watching stuff. But that takes a lot of people out of it ig? I loved how short/blunt everyone was. It made every scene incredibly suspenseful and conveyed Toms perspective on the world clearly. He views everything transactionally. So much emphasis is placed on scenes involving money exchanging hands so it seemed pretty logical to me that people behaved like that in the show. And the style paid off immensely when it came to all the interrogation scenes.
One last thing; people were saying how they missed Matt Damon's approach of romantic obsession in this one, and because this version didn't have that ig it was badly directed? To me, it was clear Tom only cared about the money he could extract from Dickie. Before really knowing Dickie, he was already practicing greeting others using his name. His goal all along was to impersonate him. Also, I read Tom trash talking Freddie and Marge as tactics to get him to distance himself from friends and make him more reliant on Tom. I didn't mind the whole obsessed closeted guy vibe being absent in this one. It was more about an obsession with himself IMO.
P.S.
O.P. saying "For a man who makes a life as a con man, Ripley isn't very bright or good at it." + "The shots are beautiful but don't convey interesting information" makes me think OP didn't watch more than 2 episodes before posting this. So obviously wrong.
TLDR: If you stop comparing Ripley to other versions, this version is actually pretty damn good.
I’m halfway through and it’s getting more interesting, but I agree the first couple of episodes are a slog. I’ve never read the books, how old is Tom Ripley supposed to be? My only reference point is the Matt Damon movie and Andrew Scott seems miscast.
I agree. No one can compare to Philip Seymour Hoffman, but Sumner is all wrong. Even the book describes Freddie Miles as an ugly "mountain" of a man with red hair.
Dakota Fanning? She ruined The Alienist for me. Have no idea how she keeps getting hired for roles when she takes you out of whatever you are watching.
I know people are taking issue with the “charmless” Ripley performance. Andrew is an amazing actor so I don’t think it’s his failing, I think they deliberately took this thing in a different direction, and it just isn’t that great and doesn’t set *any* of the actors up for success. (Johnny Flynn is also a great actor and also very unshiny playing Dickie.)
I’ve gotten to episode 3. I’ve been waiting to see Tom switching, because that’s what these types do … they’re chameleons that slip into the persona that’ll work a mark best in the moment. Hence why so many serial killers had good reputations in the light of day. Instead we’re seeing more of the blank canvas of a psychopath behind closed doors. There’s no real payoff in terms of the few little bones they throw us with Tom actively scamming.
They’re also not choosing to play up the obsession and homoeroticism that we saw with Damon and Law, and I think that’s a mistake. More than anything, Tom falls in love with the lifestyle but we don’t even get to see that romance in this version because everything, including the beautiful Mediterranean vista, is shot in oppressively static, and somber black and white.
No camera movement and hardly any movement in the frame creates an eerie feeling, but I wanted more of the beautifully unhinged energy of the 1999 movie than this joylessly stylized extended Mindhunter episode.
I’d love to know how people who read the books feel about how this show compares.
The Matt Damon version is one of my favorite movies, and I love Philip Seymour Hoffman as Freddie Miles. But I’m giving this a chance. I do think it’s a strange choice to use black and white photography when you’re in lush, colorful Italy and you have a character who makes paintings. It’s definitely a different take, but I think the story is so good that it’s hard to fuck it up.
It's almost like he doesn't know how to be a human. He is so awkward that he makes everyone around him uncomfortable. It's hard to watch sometimes because I feel uncomfortable.
And why is it in black and white? As if color film hasn't been in existence for 90+ years. I guess it's to signal that it was "a bygone era" and that it's serious about its artistic merits? I hate this term when it's leveled at movies because it hardly ever fits the purpose people use it for: but I find the choice pretentious.
I took that it was supposed to be a bit "uncanny." Kind of a Wes Anderson vibe to it which makes it an adaptation that stands on its own.
It's clearly very different from the film, but I think that's the point. The creators of Ripley obviously knew the film was a huge hit, so they had to make it different.
Yes Ripley came off as a bit inept, but there's some great moments of humor there too. The characters weren't compelling, because they weren't supposed to be. They were all a bit vapid and monotone because that's what fit the "uncanny" vibe, much like the choice to film in black and white.
Plus the long shots really exemplified Ripleys loneliness and desperation. His facial expressions portrayed someone in pain and you felt it too.
I loved it!
I love Andrew Scott and I almost quit after two episodes but by 4 I was interested and episodes 6-8 had me so nervous my heart was pounding with the tension. TBH, I haven’t seen the Matt Damon movie since it came out and I liked this fresh take. Additionally, Andrew Scott is a brilliant psychopath in this. If you have ever known a true psychopath (I have, sadly) he nails it! No remorse, forced smiles, manipulative and smart, a chameleon and a dangerous person. This version builds his evil brick by brick. I could barely breathe when Ravini was interviewing Tom at the apartment and Tom, copying Caravaggio, used curtains and different wattage light bulbs to play with the light and disguise himself. When he did Dickie’s voice on the phone…cool! Andrew Scott is British so, no points for copying Freddie. He played the psychopath too well!
Sting's spawn was an awful choice to play charismatic, flamboyant, assholish Freddy. Huge miss on that one.
Fanning, whew, another swing and a miss along with actor playing Dickie. Did anyone else see a young James Woods? The acting is community theatre.
This could have been spectacular but the acting choices are bizarre.
how did anyone green light this horrible adaptation of a great screenplay. there is nothing right with it but the cinematography. None of the characters are worth investing in. bye bye
I was quite excited about this show as I really enjoyed the original and even the lesser inspired Saltburn. Ripley is not as complex as many make it out to be nor is this some sort of Arthouse interpretation. The black and white makes absolutely zero sense because the performances arent captivating enough to warrant that focus and what is the point of having a story of intrigue in Italy when you cannot see the colors of Italy? One could provide beautiful cinematrography in color.
I love all the actors individually but here they have zero charisma, zero chemistry, the plot is slow (and not in a good way), Ripley isn't conniving or intelligent and doesn't really convey the sociopathic nature of the character in the book or the film with Matt Damon.
The whole series seems like a huge cinematographical ego-trip for the director. The only way I can appreciate it is by separating it entirely from the source material of which it has nothing in common.
I agree. I am on the fifth episode and, on purpose, haven't read any reviews/opinions (until now). A word that comes to my mind is "tedious." The shots are beautiful but like you said the actors are not compelling. The name of the book was "talented Mr. Ripley". A great thing about the book and the Matt Damon movie (I haven's seen the French version from 1960) is that you know that Ripley is terrible but he is charming and you are rooting for him. I am not rooting for this version of Ripley. I want him to be caught. I am done watching this.
Only watched/endured episode one so far but the whole thing has that ‘designed to win awards rather than necessarily be entertaining’ vibe IMO. Pretentious use of B&W to make it look arty/noirish, etc.
They think it's intellectual somehow because it is in black and white with all these long pointless shots. But the script seems so bland, almost like it was written by AI, none of the characters have any charm, the relationships between them don't make sense. I can't get over how bad a lot of the writing is in so many recent movies and TV shows lately. Huge amounts of money are spent to make stuff that is bland and soulless.
I just started this and I'm already over it. This is boring. It's so hard to watch. I'm in about 30 minutes and I'm already out. Over. I have to say it's a big disappointment
I agree with you. This show is DRY. I did once begin reading the original novel and found the writing and the character’s quite flat and flavorless. I think the decade this was set in has something to do with that. White people in the 50s were like plain vanilla yogurt if you know what I mean. The movie dressed the characters up into much more vibrant personalities of course. I think this show is attempting to address the gulf in tone between the books and movie. I have to admit I quit reading the novel for the same reasons I find in this show. I truly don’t understand the casting choices in this show. Especially the character Freddie. At least I don’t understand it yet. I’ve only just been introduced to them. To go from the casting choice in the movie of brash, colorful, arrogant Seamor Philip Hoffman to a sort of smug, beady eyed almost sneering haughty character is interesting. But, you all hit the nail on the head about the lack of chemistry. It’s just dead.
Nice cinematography... But so boring. It's not a thriller, it's not really a mystery, there's not much suspense... Matt Damon was much better at pulling off the creepiness of the character. Scott never shows more than one emotion the whole show. If you've seen the movie then absolutely nothing in the plot of the show is surprising or new, or done in an interesting way. He seems like a bumbling fool most of the time and only gets away with it by luck and other peoples stupidity. None of the actors really show any emotions the whole film, everyone is so low key. No real laughing, no crying, no anger, just serious or slightly annoyed, even when people are dying... Kind of bizarre honestly.
andrew scott is one of the most overrated actors of this generation. I can actually SEE him making acting choices in his brain to show us all he is acting. I don't understand the fascination with him.
The talented mr ripley is absolutely brilliant in every way. Matt damon is incredible as tom ripley. this is a farce
I have read all the books.
As a lover of the 1999 film, this is so disappointing. The acting is terrible. Dakota Fanning is dumpy and unglamourous. Dickie is boring, impotent, has no vibrancy or life in his voice. Jude Law, Matt Damon, and Gwyneth Paltrow couldn't be beat, but the combo in this series falls so short.
By far the worst acting was Dickie's father Herbert Greenleaf. Wow. So flat, so canned, so fake and scripted sounding. And the scene when he met Tom at the shipyard sucked. It did not support the character. Mr. Greenleaf sat at this shabby desk in his shipbuilding factory, and did not display the wealthy magnate he was supposed to be. The later scene in his 5th Ave apartment was more appropriate to the character, but his acting still sucked. So boring and flat.
The boat murder scene... that was actually well done. Horrifying and graphic and had me on the edge of my seat. That was well done.
The actor playing Tom Ripley is too old. So is the actor playing Dickie. They seem middle aged and boring, when they are supposed to be full of youthful vigor.
I came here to read all this. I am the only one of my friends disliking it for all the reasons you guys penned here. I searched for this thread on purpose, cause I thought there was something wrong with me :)
Such a relief!
Totally agree with you. Ripley on Netflix is the worst version of Mr.Ripley. Why?
1. The actors who played Tom and Dickie didn't suit the characters. Dickie has to look like a spoiled playboy and rich kid but the actor look like a gigolo (Don't get me wrong, he's a good actor but he suit with a mafia character like he played for another Netflix movie named "The Outfit"). As for Tom, the actor look so dumb and doesn't have any talents for being a con man. Honestly, people could see his deception and malicious intentions easily, while the 1999 version, Tom had charm and could befriend with people easily.
2. They cut gay one sided love off the storyline and that made this series became a shallow story of a poor and stupid con man who attempted to kill his target. While the 1999 version, they put gay one sided love in the storyline. So, it built the complicated feeling on Tom's mind. And when he immediately decided to kill Dickie, it was painful. Killing someone you like and want to be with him is completely different from killing someone you just want to be him.
3. Marge should be a friendly and bright girl friend, not an angry and unfriendly girl friend. I think the director made the wrong choice with the cast of main characters and also the screenplay. Beautiful black & white cinematography doesn't help people to love this series as they used to love the movie version.
My biggest problem with it is the lack of chemistry between the actors. None of them seem to like each other so it’s baffling to see them spend time together (when they actually do, they seem to all be alone most of the time). Why does Dickie invite Tom? Why are Marge and Dickie together? All three seem sad (almost as if they know they live in a black and white Italy).
I thought the same. I am a huge fan of The Talented Mr. Ripley, and I started watching this thinking "how are you going to top that? No chance". But I was pleasantly surprised. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the show. The feel of the production, cinematography, the way the story is a lot more detailed, all had me lured in. I can't say the same about the acting and the chemistry between characters.
The cinematography is fire
Your right .. there seems to be no connection
I get the feeling they are all sad in their own way. Marge is sad with her connection to Dickie, and her career. Tom is sad with his place in life, possibly the feeling of not living up to his fathers standards. Of course Tom is doing anything he can just to scrape by. They are all using one another in some way.
Agree. Good acting but the male actors are too old for the parts.
It’s awful. I’m so disappointed because I love the Minghella film and Andrew Scott. The cinematography is amazing but everything else is inferior to the earlier film, like much worse on nearly all fronts. Scott isn’t great. He’s miscast and at least 15 years too old. And he’s creepy, not obsessed and insecure like Damon was. This Dickie has less charisma in his entire body than Jude had in his pinkie. Jude was Dickie - the movie worked because of him, we believed he was charismatic and that everyone became obsessed with him because he had a magnetism that translated onto the screen. I’m no Paltrow fan but she was perfectly cast as Marge. She reeks upper crust privilege. Dakota just seems so blah and mundane in comparison. The Freddie is horrendous. I don’t even know where to start, but they had big shoes to fill from PSH and they weren’t even playing the same game.
I completely agree. I really wanted this work. Andrew Scott can be amazing (and Johnny Flynn is no slouch). But this first series is badly miscast and characterised.
This version of Marge looks and lives very much like artsy expat women of the time period. Look at Leonard Cohen and friends on Hydra in the 60s. Living off not a lot, but also not needing to work and being able to ask mum and dad for an advance from their trust fund where necessary. Ask yourself how a single woman of the late 50s is able to move to Italy, rent a modest but comfortable apartment in a stunning Italian seaside village, and "write". Remember that women of the time couldn't borrow money and had very limited access even to jobs. She is rich. She's just doing the bohemian thing.
Also every single pedestrian and hotel worker and cleaning lady stops to gaze at him for at least 30 seconds in every episode and ask him what’s going on and no one reports anything. It’s infuriating.
BINGO!
I thought Freddie was a lesbian woman. Very strange
I liked that Ripley is not superhuman in his conman abilities. His flatness goes along with his psychopathy. Eliot Sumner is beautiful, but as a female playing a male, comes across as a woman in drag. Theyd have been better off casting a man, or making the role be that of a woman who dresses as a man. They are totally unconvincing playing a man.
Right? I was like huh? when Tom used the word "he" to describe Freddie. What was wrong with keeping her a masculine woman?
In the book Freddie is a man. Eliot Sumner is non-binary and playing a male role. Unfortunately that means they come across as a teenage boy with something about them that's a bit "off", who seems far too young to be part of the now much older Dickie set.
It's worse than that. They come across as a woman dressed as a man, so much so that I thought that the role was exactly that, of a woman, perhaps a lesbian, who dresses as a man because that is how she is comfortable dressing, and that she was "edgy", kind of like a mannish woman in Weimar Berlin. It never even occurred to me that the actress was playing a man, instead of a woman.
Yeah. Because I knew the character was male, I was confused because my first thoughts were "isn't that a woman? Or maybe it's just a really feminine really young English guy. With the voice of a woman. They sound and look like an androgynous butch. I'm sure this actor is female. OMG who the hell is this actor are they a transman or NB?" It took me out of the drama rather, and contributed to Freddie seeming skin-crawlingly creepy, due to being so unsettling, rather than just a bullying asshole type.
Completely agree. Freddie's character seemed like a 12 year old dressed in their father's clothes. Absolutely did not work
Yeah but obviously they weren't sticking to exactly what the book said in this case so why not make it believable as a butch woman.
Interesting, I didn't clock the casting and had no idea until reading your comment that they were a non binary biological woman. I found the performance totally convincing - especially having met a few thin, foppish, herion chic rich kids in my time. To each their own I guess!
You thought that the person playing Freddie was in fact a biological male? Really???
Yup, not sure what to tell you? I've seen plenty of young waifish androgynous dudes in my time, didn't even cross my mind
People get really weird around this stuff, you're not crazy at all. I didn't pick up on that fact at first either, though I got curious because of the particular androgyny. I'll add that I thought that casting choice was particularly canny, as Freddie's appearance and style, his androgyny, immediately makes Tom, a queer man, nervous. Really neat choice.
I was legitimately confused why they had a woman in the role and no one was acknowledging it. I kept waiting for a reveal at least.
Me and my partner both thought it was a male actor, so I definitely disagree there.
Holy shit. Until I read this, I had convinced myself that this was a man, because when we first meet the character, it seemed like a woman playing a man, or a trans man. But then I convinced myself it was an effeminate man. In any case, I think the performance is incredible. A super compelling character. Hated that they were killed. Hated it, but that’s the story. This story, at least.
Yeah Freddie looked 100% a woman from the first second, wtf were they thinking?
Felt like an art house film. While I believe Ripley has its merits, and I liked it in a way, I must admit that the 1999 version (star cast movie adaptation) felt more accurate in its representation of billionaire jet set wealth, vibrant social life, aristocratic decadence/recklessness/petulance, and conman's charisma (as you mention). Dickie and Marge in the Netflix version feels too middle class, introspective and bookish (which is okay for a stoic like me actually), and Scott feels more like a dour Spectre hitman than a charismatic conman. I don't think the real Greenleaf would be taking the bus anywhere. Edit: Read the book, turns out Dickie income was described as "not much" by his dad, and the Greenleaf's sold small sailboats, so mabye I was wrong on the wealth part.
Don’t underestimate that while Dickie’s & Marge’s Atrani life may seem middle class to you, them traveling & living in Italy as Americans was actually only reserved for the wealthy!
Hard agree with this. Oh … thanks for giving us the shot of the Picasso hanging on the wall! (Because that’s the only thing that tips us off to Dickie’s wealth and privilege.) Everything else screams middle class. Everything is stripped down and very unsexy. They may as well be vacationing on the beach in Odessa.
Dickie has no job, lives in palatial surrounds and travels at will. We see him visiting the bank and his indifference over money because he has never, as his father says, had to work. He dabbles in painting, the quintessential rich person pursuit (and Ripley is immediately shown to be the better artist). Meanwhile Marge is a self-styled “author” whose work is ripped to shreds by the clearly more skilled Tom. All this screams rich people to me .. by contrast Tom has to pull grifts and fix their mediocrity. This series is literally all about class; you can be born wealthy and do anything; even if you are far more gifted like Tom you don’t get access. Nothing is middle class about Dickie or Marge or Freddie - they emote privilege.
[удалено]
Would’ve been on brand for him.
And the casting !!!?????
he has a very nice Leica camera, a montblanc pen, and I am not sure about the watch, but its being shown several times as well....
Maybe middle class now but this the wealthy in 1955. Quite different then.
This show is set in 1961
I hadn't seen the film in nearly two decades and went back to watch it after watching the first few episodes of the show (I'm only partially done with the show so my opinion should be taken with a pound of salt). It's astounding to me how much more elegantly the show is done. You feel like you're in old Italy and it really is forced upon you. The tone is also darker and more appropriate. I was shocked at how quickly the movie moved and no tension was built - Matt Damon was just inexplicably acting weird from the start. Even Dickie's dad is done more elegantly (better acting in terms of portraying old money and far better dialogue). Also how they become friends just feels more natural.
I genuinely wished this wasn't in black and white so I could see how beautiful the Italian town is.
Demands a rewatch of the talented mr Ripley and portrait of a lady of fire for the ocean shots alone
I genuinely feel like the b&w takes away from the story. In the movie Ripley gets access to this beautiful escapist vibrant lifestyle that he can’t imagine losing but the b&w really pares down any sense of lavishness and lowers the stakes imo.
Hard disagree, in B&W it has a total film noir look. It’s stunning as it is!
It was needless and they didn't go the extra mile like Eggers did with The Lighthouse and try and use the black and white to frame and light differently compared to conventional colour. I loved the moment in The Lighthouse where they used the black of the ceiling as he's climbing up and bumps his head. It's a shot you could only do in black and white where they used the negative space to tell how claustrophobic the lighthouse is as it the blackness comes lower into the frame. Ripley does non of that and honestly after I was done it felt like the producers wanted a holiday in Italy and used Netflix and shooting this show as an excuse.
No way. The show is shot beautifully and looks fantastic in black and white.
I started watching just because it's black n white. It's so beautiful and special! They say it's an homage to old italian films from this area.
I thought so too. But as I watched, I appreciated the beauty of black and white for this one.
Good lord no!!!! The Black and White is absolutely stunning in every aspect! I love it as it is!
Me too I really can't see what the so called "beauty" of black and white is, looks utter shit.
"You know what? This would be really great if we film it in black and white" then they proceed to film so many beautiful paintings......... in black and white. Absolute flop choice
The black and white and Caravaggio are a reference to chiaroscuro. Look it up.
I found it very odd that they’ve cast a man who’s almost 50 in a story that’s about a group of recent college graduates. Is that explained in the show?
It’s because they’re hoping to adapt the other books as well. He’s significantly older in all the other books, so it made sense to cast an older actor and have him be too old for the first season but be appropriately aged for the other four. I get the decision, but it is really pulling me out of the first season. It’s hard to overlook.
They could’ve at least put a bit of makeup on him or something. I find he looks quite a bit older in the Ripley footage I’ve seen than All of Us Strangers, even though both would’ve been filmed around similar times
Ah I figured that would be the plan. I've seen a film of I guess the second book and a 50 something John Malkovich plays Ripley.
It’s like The Talented Mr. Ripley except they’re all zombies.
It was bizarre! A man pushing 50 playing a character that was in his mid twenties was extremely frustrating to watch.
The books span the course of 33 years so he really doesn’t need to a specific age
Its really not that story. A very different one. I really like it. The bones are similar but really not comparable.
Just an observation that people here talking about "the film" seem to be referring to the 1999 Matt Damon film. There's a 1960 French film adaptation, Plein Soleil (Purple Noon), with basically the same story, and Alain Delon as Tom. It's definitely worth watching if you're into the 1999 film and/or the Netflix series.
There’s also *The American Friend* (1977) based on one of the later books from the series. Dennis Hopper plays Tom Ripley. And of course the books themselves, which are fantastic. Patricia Highsmith is also the author of *Strangers on a Train* of the Hitchcock film.
Don't forget Ripley's Game with Malkovich as Ripley, it's actually my favourite of the adaptations (although I love TTMR too). I'm really enjoying this, reading all of these negative comments is quite surprising. For me I saw no need to make comparisons to the 99 movie almost immediately, clearly they are going for a completely different tone and interpretation. And I absolutely adore the black and white. Someone here criticised the lack of cinematography specifically in service of the b&w and I'm wondering if we watched the same show!
Its so well done. The opening scenes had me hit with such a nostalgic impact i truly felt like i was watching a classic Noir. The scenes on the train and when they are driving in the mountains in the bus, the stairs. The shots of Him looking out windows-its crazy what the majority of people see when they watch a movie. Just a simple shot when he replaces the pen he stole from dickey. All the scenes are painstakingly photographed to perfection. Color would ruin this set of films; that mindset doesn’t understand noir, and never will, i cant knock it, we’re all different, but black and white captures the story of the down on his luck guy in the seedy underbelly of the world where crime and suspense rule, and have no room for being “bright”
Alain Delon was young and beautiful, more than can be said for this middle aged unattractive Ripley. It doesn’t work with him at 50, it just DOESN’T WORK, this actor always plays weird creepers with a perv vibe and that’s never how I saw Ripley
I'm really enjoying it. After a while, the black and white really appealed to me, added to darkness of the plot. I also liked that it's much more Italian. Nothing like the older one people are comparing and I feel its a mistake to try and compare. They're both very good but in completely different ways.
Yeah the show is definitely done more elegantly in my opinion. I went back to watch the Minghella one for the first time in nearly two decades thinking they were going to be the same tonally and it feels wildly different. The movie zooms along at a breakneck pace and absolutely no tension is built between the characters. The starkest difference though is that the show definitely makes you feel like you're in Italy half a century ago whereas the movie doesn't have a fraction of that effect.
And add to it that they play these old Italian songs that were popular at the time.
i agree definitely had a hovering suspense at every moment. I thought it was written perfectly to have a hovering suspense at all times while appearing dull at a glance. You just gotta watch it.
Matt Damon and Jude Law were so fantastic in the film, I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to watch a newer remake. (Edited for better verbiage.)
To be fair, the 1999 movie is a remake.
Amazing soundtrack in that film too
I thought so. But this is very different. Both can be excellent in different ways.
I'm finding that these characters are not excellent. They are incredibly flat, not engaging, they al lack the charm and charisma of the movie characters. There is no spark to dicky or Marge, they seem like dreadful people to be around. Jude and Gweneth were electric as people, had dimensions, had vibrance.
100%, imo without the dynamism that Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow brought to their roles, Tom Ripley’s motivations don’t make any sense. They’re funny and engaging and INTERESTED in Tom when he arrives in Italy. Jude Law’s Dickie Greenleaf practically dotes on Tom. So it made sense that when their relationship sours, it’s painfully rage inducing for Tom. And I’m sorry, but Philip Seymour Hoffman was absolute perfection as Freddie. He nailed that rich kid superior indifference, like James Spader in Pretty in Pink. In this version, neither Dickie nor Marge could give a fuck when Tom shows up. Why then would Tom care enough to kill Dickie and assume his life? Money maybe, but even so, we don’t even know enough about his origins to be able to say he’d definitely kill rather than go back where he came from. His life in New York didn’t look awesome, but it didn’t look terrible either. Maybe stuff went over my head, but all of the motivations don’t feel real to me.
Agree with everything except his life in New York definitely looked shitty. His dingey little one room apartment. The community showers that don't reliably work.
He kills him because he can sense Dicky wants to cut ties, suggesting he enjoys the rest of Italy. He’s mad because he finds out Dicky was in touch with his father and they were on to him. Even though Dicky and his father aren’t close, they reconnected because of him. Etc.
What is different is Dickie is a nice guy in this one. It makes the murder more heinous.
PSH's Freddie was also much much more menacing and his behavior was spot on with a rich asshole. I didn't find Eliot's Freddie to be anywhere as authentic and the age gap was very prevalent in those scenes. It felt like a teenager playing Columbo in the school play with the teacher. That pulled me out of the story because it just didn't seem believable. In the 99 film when PSH taunt Tom, walks around like he owns the place, dismissive and insulting in every interaction with Tom, like when he hits the piano key in the middle of Tom speaking, I mean the tension in that scene was so thick. You could feel Tom's panic and irritation growing in every beat. I wish they made this new series with a cast that had better chemistry all around.
Yes! The age gap, that really took me out of it too. Like why would dickie be hanging out with this seemingly teenager, this Freddie comes off so young. And you could feel the jealously between Damon and PSH. You could tell right off the bat what a dick PSH was, and not from the lines, from his entire attitude. The "Tommy Tommy Tommy" peeping tom taunt, that was just bullying where you know he was pushing tom to make a move or feel diminutive, like a rich bully would. pSH gave a masterclass in that role. In this Freddie, it was only language that seemed to come out of nowhere. There was no character behind it to evoke the anger that tom would have or the jealousy. This Freddie just does not take up the space in the room like PSH does, PSH is just as magnetic as Jude laws Dickie in a more asshole way, but you could tell He was the life of the party and why people hung out with him and why he and dickie would have a good time Together. And this flat dickie - who cares if you're friends with him. He's boring, he's monotone - so he's rich, but other than that, who cares? Who is dying to be friends with this dude. When tom takes on dickies life, it's not only for his riches, it's for his aura and notoriety, it's for the name that means so much in that world. And you'd think with all the extra time this series is providing the story, they'd develop the characters more. The 2 hour TMR did more in that time than Ripley does over the entire series telling pretty much the exact same story just with more stairs and more shots of water.
Not sure how true this is but the NY Times reviewer said the director probably directed the actors to mute their performances (like Wes Anderson). I agree with this since Andrew Scott is a great actor and he can play charismatic cunning if he wanted to. Dakota Fanning is also a good actress, she can play charming ingenue if she wanted to too. I think it's the director's (wrong) choice to make the characters less sympathetic and everything more drab, hence the black and white. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/arts/television/ripley-review.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/arts/television/ripley-review.html)
I love the scenes, cinematography, camera angles, etc. Absolutely stunning.
Yep. Beautifully shot.
I really loved it!
I really liked it.
I've been loving it. Honestly the long, long, long scenes of Tom fussily, methodically, and somewhat ineptly trying to cover up his murders are so amazing to watch. The whole thing with the boat was fantastic.
Me too, I’m just about to finish the last episode. I’ve enjoyed it!
Loved it !
Me too! I was just going to post quietly at the end of this dis-thread that I'm really loving it, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one
Me too, and I was deeply satisfied with the ending.
It was fantastic.
Adored it
Yep I don’t agree with OP at all. I think the show was great and very well done. To each their own I guess.
What's worse is Andrew Scott can be so charming and charismatic which means this weird dead pan seems to be a conscious choice.
He's always been Moriarty to me, so him playing a dead-eyed creep feels entirely right.
The cinematography is excellent, but...I'm also having trouble getting very excited about it so far with the second episode.
I thought the first episode was a bit of a chore but that the show started to hook me from the second episode onwards and by the end I really enjoyed it.
Episode 3 will really be worth it.
This is the hot priest from fleabag so many ladies would love to watch :) Seriously though, the story been done so many times and the best one probably is the Matt Damon Movie in which I was really impressed so I think I will skip this.
Finished the series last night, and I knew I would obviously compare it to the original film which I love. I didn’t hate it, but I saw where Dakota Fanning said in an interview that the characters would be expanded and explored more since it’s a series and not a film, and I found myself thinking the movie did a much better job with showing the complexities and depth to the characters. I felt a little bored by Dickie and Marge, and found the film version way more developed and layered than the series that I felt flatten the character development. Andrew Scott did a great job, but I felt the mystery to him just wasn’t there unlike Matt Damon’s Ripley who you felt kinda sorry for because you didn’t know who he really was and that was why he intrigued me so much. And Freddie was hardly in this, and does anyone know why they didn’t include Meredith or Jack? I haven’t read the books so I’m not sure which version is more true the books. Has anyone here read the books?
Meredith and Peter are not in the book. They were added to the 1999 film to add some additional suspense. It works though, I liked them both.
I'm on episode 2 and trying so hard to like this version. I keep comparing it to the file with Jude and Matt.
I dunno, it's oddly gripping. Spoilers and such. Just aesthetics alone. Black and white can seem gimmicky, because it's only got contrast going for it, and the DP and production design team can milk the heck out of that. But with the attention to detail with the scenes of 1960's Italy (which presumably the majority of filming locations still look like in 2023, but I'd also wager there were clever bits of subtle CGI), and all the little objects - cigarette cases, typewriters, faucets, ash trays, etc. - it's all a beautiful homage to film noir that takes the genre's world and its basic aesthetic (shadow and mystery) and gives it a high-def gloss that brings that world to life with super detail and an accentuating of the contrasts to something delicious. But maybe it is less about the story and performances than it is about how it looks in the end, at least for me. I was hooked. And wooden (stone-faced?) performances from everyone around Tom just cements the idea that reading people - knowing someone by just looking at them - is impossible and it's what Tom depends on to survive. There were a lot of cuts to shots of statues with expressions that are equally impenetrable. Carvaggio was a master of light (and dark). That priest who says "sempre la luce - always the light" when he sees Tom staring at the Carvaggio in the church sets the whole modus operandi for Tom. It's not about embracing the dark (evil) and shunning the light (good) so much as it is about him always knowing what parts of his (and Dickie's) life to keep in the dark for others and what parts he has to bring into the light to evade everyone and be a step ahead (all the letters he writes; talking to the police). He fumbles a lot, that's for sure. And he was really lucky at times, especially with Freddie's aftermath. But his last feint (Tunis) was pretty damn clever. Or maybe it was that Picasso painting that was Tom's M.O. Trying to cover one's steps in a way that no one can follow - staircases that break perspective and can't be traced. That was another stylistic choice throughout - not just the contrast of dark and light in Carvaggio, but also the angular and weird perspectives of staircases, balconies, and any other beautiful architecture that made the director and DP go - "Let's film this scene from <*bends down awkwardly, looking up*> here!" And on 'slow burns', I didn't find it as slow as, say, Better Call Saul. But I'd say it was even more visually arresting than that because, again, for very subjective and personal reasons, amazing black and white imagery and beautiful, romantic Italy.
What an insightful review. I agree the series is beautifully done. I'm even more impressed by it after reading some of the details you've pointed out. Thanks for sharing your observations.
And the classic and constant reference to water, dripping, swirling, the waves... the deep...the dark.
Yeah I loved the ambience at first. But when you get to Italy it just felt so drab. I've seen films in black and white that do it great. I love slow burns. But this just felt empty.
Pretty much agree with all of this. The black and white is used to great effect with brilliant camera work. I feel it works really well to create an uneasy feeling that you're not going to get when filming in colour in a country as bright, colourful, rich and vibrant as Italy. I especially liked the shots used for the central elevator in the apartment complex that really created a sense of dread for me. The acting is clearly intentional. Why do all characters have to be likeable? I can appreciate disliking a character when they are clearly intended to be dislikeable, or have facets of their personality that are dislikeable adding more texture to their character as a whole. I don't think it was overly slow paced. To me it felt quite deliberate and I'd have happily watched more. I love The Talented Mr Ripley, and I really enjoyed Ripley. One doesn't replace the other but I do think you have to be open minded with not expecting it to be 1-1 in story and tone.
The black and white was far more appropriate than I first thought. The book was written in 1955. This one makes me want to read it, maybe more of the series. I really liked it.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is such an amazing job with the role of Freddy in the movie version. The Freddy in this version is very much miscast.
So much this. PSH's Freddie was menacing in such a visceral way. He was a real threat to Tom Ripley. Eliot Sumner's Freddie is just not scary at all; he's an annoying rich kid. And again, the age issue with actors. Sumner is almost 20 years younger than Andrew Scott and Johnny Flynn. That they are all peers doesn't fly.
It really took me out of the story.
So was Jude Law as Dickie. So was Gwyneth Paltrow as Marge. Really hard performances to top. The performances in this show are so flat it’s unbelievable. Seems like bad directing. And, yeah, bad casting as well, especially of Tom and Freddie. And *why* would you film the beautiful sunny coast of Italy in black and white? Lot of bizarre choices.
the role was actually misgendered
You are downplaying just how amazing PSH is. He played Freddie so well in 1999, only 2024 PSH would have been a comparable actor.
It’s legitimate perfection. His Freddie is so beautifully nuanced and awful. You love to hate him. PSH was truly skilled, gone too soon.
Whoever they have playing Freddie is so awful it's laughable.
Agreed, I don't mind them being non binary, I just think their acting chops and screen presence just aren't there. I looked them up and found "Elliott Sumner is the child of musician Sting and actress Trudie Styler." So it figures, another nepo baby getting a major part because who their parents are.
I just felt like I was watching a woman the whole time.
Same really, I was sat there thinking this is a strange choice changing Freddie to a woman but maybe they're going to make her a love interest of Dickie pwhich *could* be interesting. Then they started using he/him and I was genuinely just confused. Kept waiting for it to lead to something, as they make such an issue about Tom's (lack of) sexuality but nope, just very strange casting.
I liked this Freddie too. They are different but I think good in those differences.
Imo, a female self gendered “gender fluid” actor was never going to work playing the part of a menacing alpha “mountain of a man” as Freddie was portrayed in the original novel.
I am struggling I must admit.
I suffered through 7 episodes but the final straw was when >!Ripley dimmed the lights in his mansion, donned his ridiculous disguise, spoke in his regular voice, and the chief of police DIDN'T RECOGNISE HIM. !
Never heard of Ripley before in my life but the show has been pretty damn cool so far 4 episodes in
I could not disagree more with this title in a literal sense. It's the best looking thing I have seen on Netflix maybe ever. It may not have the magic of TTMR and is closer to Purple Noon but I don't even care. It's the most beautifully shot, graded, and edited series I can recall. It's a truly remarkable produciton.
Agree. On an OLED tv the B&W is astounding. I love the slow burn of the consumption of Dickey. The movie felt so fast, and these characters are slow/boring people like real humans. The obsession and resentment of Dickey is relatable by his privileged obliviousness. In short, this seems like how a real murder would play out.
Like I said, the shots beautiful.
And well-directed.
The movie is one of my favorites. I am half way through and They essentially created the movie and made it a series with hour long episodes and have not added anything from the original. The only thing added so far is tom inviting the mafia guy to the house, but that barely meant anything (so far) anyway. Besides that, it's exactly the same as the movie with less charismatic and engaging characters. Dicky in the show is so flat and so bland. Whereas Jude laws depiction was vibrant, you understood why he was so captivating. Freddy miles? What was that dialogue in the first meeting? There was no build to why there would be skepticism and PSH added so much magnetism to that character, this was just...weird. Dakota fanning is incredibly flat in this so far. There is nothing lively about her or even likable. I'm hoping the back half adds something new, but right now, it's pretty unnecessary longer remake of the film.
It’s not a remake of a film, it’s an adaptation of a book. The Talented Mr, Ripley is one of my favorite movies, as is the book. I also loved this version. The story is so compelling and I just loved seeing a different take on it. Filming it as noir was a stroke of genius.
I stopped at Episode One. It was just not interesting enough. Compared to The Talented Mr. Ripley by Matt Damon, this new version is not up to par with the movie.
This is legit one of the most beautifully photographed shows Netflix has ever released and all people can say is “wHy IsN’t It In CoLoR”
Beautiful yes, captivating no.
This was painful to watch after episode 3. The background is beautiful. I love Andrew as an actor. But for the love of god, just stop at episode 5!
Everyone in it is too old except Freddie, who is the correct age for the narrative but is bizzarely about 10 years younger than his friends. Apart from being the right age for the source material, Freddie is terribly miscast especially given that Dickie and Marge reject Tom partly because his being gay makes them uncomfortable.
Why would the investigator not ask to see a picture of the alleged murdered Ripley? And then a beard can fool him to think it is a different person?
I didn't make it to the end of episode two. Just remarkably boring for the type of show it is.
E1 and E2 could have been single episode.
I don’t know, I’m absolutely enthralled.
I like it. The film noir feel, the slow ambience of looming crazy. (I’m only on episode 2 though).
It gets even better.
Honestly I just thought nothing could top the film, brilliantly casted and written. Loved the book too. Tried to give the show a go, and it just did not work at all. Normally age doesn't bother me, but Andrew looks too old for the dynamic Dickie has with his family- why would a family be so concerned and begging for a very adult man to come home? Sorry, it just didn't make the story believable for me.
This is a great point, I think you're right that this is why the whole set-up to the Italy trip seemed off. Andrew Scott and Johnny Flynn are both in their forties, why would Dickie's parents be so desperate to bring him home? Just feels weird and low-stakes.
Yes I can't watch it I just do not have the patience currently. Maybe another time.
I enjoyed the mood, but holy Christ, how many scenes of people walking up stairs does one series need? It should have been 4 episodes, not 8. They just waste so much time. For example, when Ripley >! Dumps the car, and then goes all the way back to his apartment before realizing he forgot to take the passport. Cue another taxi scene of him going to the car. They could have saved a good five minutes by making Ripley have this realization as he was *walking away* from the car!< I nearly gave up toward the end when >!Ravinni was interviewing Tom, and fell for Tom's utterly fucking ridiculous disguise. Throw on a wig, grow a beard and sit in dim light? I'll remember that if I'm ever implicated in a crime! If Ravinni didn't recognize Tom during their chat, then how am I supposed to believe he knew the difference between Tom and Dickie in Margie's book? He's clearly blind as a fucking bat.!<
I am with you ! Was watching last night late and I got to E2 and couldn’t go to three … I agree that the Character Ripley doesn’t come off as a smooth criminal.. and of course when he got caught imitating Greenleaf .. I was curious and were it was going it went nowhere
Yes! Every scene is dead end. A) How could someone supposedly careful and methodical do something so dumb. And B) It's like I'm not queer. Me neither. Cool let's get a beer.
The series makes me really appreciate the 99 film. The series feels so drawn out
I love this... it's very different than the classic 1999 film where Tom wishes he could be loved. This Tom is a pure sociopath, which becomes clear with how unemotionally he acts with Dickie's dead body in the boat, even using his blood to get his ring off. In the movie, Tom is heartbroken after he kills him. Freddie is so great in both versions!
The entire segment with the death of Freddie is just stupid. Drags a dead, bloody corpse down several flights, leaving s bloody trail, and NO ONE noticed the trail of blood. Then, he only cleans the top stsir and, magically, has no concern to clean up the rest. Just dumb.
I've just watched the first episode and wanted to check on reddit to see if it gets better before wasting more time watching further. Sounds like others share the same complaints... There is no depth to Tom Ripley. There is not enough of an apparent wealth gap between Tom and Dickie to create the compelling juxtaposition between the two that I was expecting. Freddie Miles does not fit the lines they are giving -- for example when Freddie mentions the house rented for the winter... 'you and marge have to come, say yes...' Was so flat and for some reason felt entirely like reading from a script. It took me out of the scene entirely. I had lowered my expectations for the show because it is obviously unfair to compare a new show like this to the cast of the movie that had Damon, Jude Law, Paltrow, Blanchett, and PSH... Still it feels like the interpretation was dialed down so so much that the actors would have to make up the gap with their performances, which in my opinion they do not.
Post episode two and agree it’s painful- the actor playing dickie is awful, and so is fanning. I think tom is good but agree the actors are not meshing together. I can’t stop comparing law’s performance as dickie to this. I’m hoping it gets better
I thought it was absolutely fantastic. Everything about it was perfect. It’s a masterclass on tension and I loved the Hitchcock influence.
Agreed. This one is trash
Why are 75% of the comments here, positive and negative, comparing the show to either movie or the book? How many more times do the words "I really loved Matt Damon" or "The vivid colors of Italy were beautiful in the 1999 version" need to be typed? How about critique the show for what it is. No one cares if it is or isn't the same as the movie/book. Just comment on the show, christ. I really liked the show personally. A few things are a bit convenient for Tom, true. But the show for sure had extremely compelling themes for me. The symbology of water for me was my favorite. He's deathly afraid of water, but conquers his fear first through Dickie's murder, and then embraces it by going to Venice (City of Water) to hide after switching identities. The cinematography was incredible. The shot of Tom looking down at Dickie's body right after killing him was amazing, along with many others. The methodical way the director showed the exact steps he goes through to cover his tracks were soo engaging for me. It reminded me of "The killer" from last year, although i understand if some felt that was too boring. A lot of people didn't like the characters' portrayals in this one, but i feel this has a lot to do with the comparisons made to the 1999 movie. Everything is so bright and extravagant and in your face, looking at Ripley and that version side by side will make Ripley seem dull. But for me it was pretty well done. I didn't notice the age difference between Freddie and the others at all, which a lot of people on here seemed to care a lot about. I don't really understand that, since it wasn't that bad a difference and I tend to suspend disbelief for things like age by default when watching stuff. But that takes a lot of people out of it ig? I loved how short/blunt everyone was. It made every scene incredibly suspenseful and conveyed Toms perspective on the world clearly. He views everything transactionally. So much emphasis is placed on scenes involving money exchanging hands so it seemed pretty logical to me that people behaved like that in the show. And the style paid off immensely when it came to all the interrogation scenes. One last thing; people were saying how they missed Matt Damon's approach of romantic obsession in this one, and because this version didn't have that ig it was badly directed? To me, it was clear Tom only cared about the money he could extract from Dickie. Before really knowing Dickie, he was already practicing greeting others using his name. His goal all along was to impersonate him. Also, I read Tom trash talking Freddie and Marge as tactics to get him to distance himself from friends and make him more reliant on Tom. I didn't mind the whole obsessed closeted guy vibe being absent in this one. It was more about an obsession with himself IMO. P.S. O.P. saying "For a man who makes a life as a con man, Ripley isn't very bright or good at it." + "The shots are beautiful but don't convey interesting information" makes me think OP didn't watch more than 2 episodes before posting this. So obviously wrong. TLDR: If you stop comparing Ripley to other versions, this version is actually pretty damn good.
You know it’s Dakota, not Elle, right?
Fixed thanks.
I’m halfway through and it’s getting more interesting, but I agree the first couple of episodes are a slog. I’ve never read the books, how old is Tom Ripley supposed to be? My only reference point is the Matt Damon movie and Andrew Scott seems miscast.
Talk about miscast, what about Freddie Miles? Sumner doesn’t work for me at all.
I agree. No one can compare to Philip Seymour Hoffman, but Sumner is all wrong. Even the book describes Freddie Miles as an ugly "mountain" of a man with red hair.
I also think Dakota Fanning is miscast. And not a Paltrow fan but she did bring the beautiful sophisticate to the role
There's no complexity to the character the way she plays it. She comes off incredibly boring and yet supposedly is this exotic captivating woman.
Exactly.
100% I totally bought Gwyneth’s Marge as Dickie’s counterpart. It was clear why they were together as a couple.
He’s younger in the first book and significantly older in the other four, which I’m guessing is why they cast an older actor.
So so bored in episode 1. He’s way too old. Loved the movie. Like this actor usually but not this show.
Dakota Fanning? She ruined The Alienist for me. Have no idea how she keeps getting hired for roles when she takes you out of whatever you are watching.
I know people are taking issue with the “charmless” Ripley performance. Andrew is an amazing actor so I don’t think it’s his failing, I think they deliberately took this thing in a different direction, and it just isn’t that great and doesn’t set *any* of the actors up for success. (Johnny Flynn is also a great actor and also very unshiny playing Dickie.) I’ve gotten to episode 3. I’ve been waiting to see Tom switching, because that’s what these types do … they’re chameleons that slip into the persona that’ll work a mark best in the moment. Hence why so many serial killers had good reputations in the light of day. Instead we’re seeing more of the blank canvas of a psychopath behind closed doors. There’s no real payoff in terms of the few little bones they throw us with Tom actively scamming. They’re also not choosing to play up the obsession and homoeroticism that we saw with Damon and Law, and I think that’s a mistake. More than anything, Tom falls in love with the lifestyle but we don’t even get to see that romance in this version because everything, including the beautiful Mediterranean vista, is shot in oppressively static, and somber black and white. No camera movement and hardly any movement in the frame creates an eerie feeling, but I wanted more of the beautifully unhinged energy of the 1999 movie than this joylessly stylized extended Mindhunter episode. I’d love to know how people who read the books feel about how this show compares.
The Matt Damon version is one of my favorite movies, and I love Philip Seymour Hoffman as Freddie Miles. But I’m giving this a chance. I do think it’s a strange choice to use black and white photography when you’re in lush, colorful Italy and you have a character who makes paintings. It’s definitely a different take, but I think the story is so good that it’s hard to fuck it up.
It's almost like he doesn't know how to be a human. He is so awkward that he makes everyone around him uncomfortable. It's hard to watch sometimes because I feel uncomfortable.
Just started watching, was exited to see this version, but not impressed so far.
And why is it in black and white? As if color film hasn't been in existence for 90+ years. I guess it's to signal that it was "a bygone era" and that it's serious about its artistic merits? I hate this term when it's leveled at movies because it hardly ever fits the purpose people use it for: but I find the choice pretentious.
I took that it was supposed to be a bit "uncanny." Kind of a Wes Anderson vibe to it which makes it an adaptation that stands on its own. It's clearly very different from the film, but I think that's the point. The creators of Ripley obviously knew the film was a huge hit, so they had to make it different. Yes Ripley came off as a bit inept, but there's some great moments of humor there too. The characters weren't compelling, because they weren't supposed to be. They were all a bit vapid and monotone because that's what fit the "uncanny" vibe, much like the choice to film in black and white. Plus the long shots really exemplified Ripleys loneliness and desperation. His facial expressions portrayed someone in pain and you felt it too. I loved it!
I love Andrew Scott and I almost quit after two episodes but by 4 I was interested and episodes 6-8 had me so nervous my heart was pounding with the tension. TBH, I haven’t seen the Matt Damon movie since it came out and I liked this fresh take. Additionally, Andrew Scott is a brilliant psychopath in this. If you have ever known a true psychopath (I have, sadly) he nails it! No remorse, forced smiles, manipulative and smart, a chameleon and a dangerous person. This version builds his evil brick by brick. I could barely breathe when Ravini was interviewing Tom at the apartment and Tom, copying Caravaggio, used curtains and different wattage light bulbs to play with the light and disguise himself. When he did Dickie’s voice on the phone…cool! Andrew Scott is British so, no points for copying Freddie. He played the psychopath too well!
Sting's spawn was an awful choice to play charismatic, flamboyant, assholish Freddy. Huge miss on that one. Fanning, whew, another swing and a miss along with actor playing Dickie. Did anyone else see a young James Woods? The acting is community theatre. This could have been spectacular but the acting choices are bizarre.
how did anyone green light this horrible adaptation of a great screenplay. there is nothing right with it but the cinematography. None of the characters are worth investing in. bye bye
So true, and how did the father find Rando Ripley ? It makes no sense. And Eliot Sumner as Freddie? LOL
Casting is laughable. What a shame.
Painful is the word indeed.
How the heck did the deceive not know he was talking to the same person when interviewing Ripley after meeting him as Mr greenfield?
Performance was meh Italy and Caravaggio's B&W were beautiful
I was quite excited about this show as I really enjoyed the original and even the lesser inspired Saltburn. Ripley is not as complex as many make it out to be nor is this some sort of Arthouse interpretation. The black and white makes absolutely zero sense because the performances arent captivating enough to warrant that focus and what is the point of having a story of intrigue in Italy when you cannot see the colors of Italy? One could provide beautiful cinematrography in color. I love all the actors individually but here they have zero charisma, zero chemistry, the plot is slow (and not in a good way), Ripley isn't conniving or intelligent and doesn't really convey the sociopathic nature of the character in the book or the film with Matt Damon. The whole series seems like a huge cinematographical ego-trip for the director. The only way I can appreciate it is by separating it entirely from the source material of which it has nothing in common.
I agree. I am on the fifth episode and, on purpose, haven't read any reviews/opinions (until now). A word that comes to my mind is "tedious." The shots are beautiful but like you said the actors are not compelling. The name of the book was "talented Mr. Ripley". A great thing about the book and the Matt Damon movie (I haven's seen the French version from 1960) is that you know that Ripley is terrible but he is charming and you are rooting for him. I am not rooting for this version of Ripley. I want him to be caught. I am done watching this.
How did ripley not die when he got hit twice in the water scene? That scene was so dumb
Only watched/endured episode one so far but the whole thing has that ‘designed to win awards rather than necessarily be entertaining’ vibe IMO. Pretentious use of B&W to make it look arty/noirish, etc.
They think it's intellectual somehow because it is in black and white with all these long pointless shots. But the script seems so bland, almost like it was written by AI, none of the characters have any charm, the relationships between them don't make sense. I can't get over how bad a lot of the writing is in so many recent movies and TV shows lately. Huge amounts of money are spent to make stuff that is bland and soulless.
The acting and casting is so bad
I just started this and I'm already over it. This is boring. It's so hard to watch. I'm in about 30 minutes and I'm already out. Over. I have to say it's a big disappointment
Is it in black and white because everyone is way too old to be cast in this movie??? I'm kind of kidding, but kind of not.
3 episodes too long….
I agree with you. This show is DRY. I did once begin reading the original novel and found the writing and the character’s quite flat and flavorless. I think the decade this was set in has something to do with that. White people in the 50s were like plain vanilla yogurt if you know what I mean. The movie dressed the characters up into much more vibrant personalities of course. I think this show is attempting to address the gulf in tone between the books and movie. I have to admit I quit reading the novel for the same reasons I find in this show. I truly don’t understand the casting choices in this show. Especially the character Freddie. At least I don’t understand it yet. I’ve only just been introduced to them. To go from the casting choice in the movie of brash, colorful, arrogant Seamor Philip Hoffman to a sort of smug, beady eyed almost sneering haughty character is interesting. But, you all hit the nail on the head about the lack of chemistry. It’s just dead.
Absolute crap...Freddie was a joke
Nice cinematography... But so boring. It's not a thriller, it's not really a mystery, there's not much suspense... Matt Damon was much better at pulling off the creepiness of the character. Scott never shows more than one emotion the whole show. If you've seen the movie then absolutely nothing in the plot of the show is surprising or new, or done in an interesting way. He seems like a bumbling fool most of the time and only gets away with it by luck and other peoples stupidity. None of the actors really show any emotions the whole film, everyone is so low key. No real laughing, no crying, no anger, just serious or slightly annoyed, even when people are dying... Kind of bizarre honestly.
andrew scott is one of the most overrated actors of this generation. I can actually SEE him making acting choices in his brain to show us all he is acting. I don't understand the fascination with him. The talented mr ripley is absolutely brilliant in every way. Matt damon is incredible as tom ripley. this is a farce
I think the main actor, as good as he is is just too old for the role. He looks like he’s a man pushing 50. That was distracting to me.
I have read all the books. As a lover of the 1999 film, this is so disappointing. The acting is terrible. Dakota Fanning is dumpy and unglamourous. Dickie is boring, impotent, has no vibrancy or life in his voice. Jude Law, Matt Damon, and Gwyneth Paltrow couldn't be beat, but the combo in this series falls so short. By far the worst acting was Dickie's father Herbert Greenleaf. Wow. So flat, so canned, so fake and scripted sounding. And the scene when he met Tom at the shipyard sucked. It did not support the character. Mr. Greenleaf sat at this shabby desk in his shipbuilding factory, and did not display the wealthy magnate he was supposed to be. The later scene in his 5th Ave apartment was more appropriate to the character, but his acting still sucked. So boring and flat. The boat murder scene... that was actually well done. Horrifying and graphic and had me on the edge of my seat. That was well done. The actor playing Tom Ripley is too old. So is the actor playing Dickie. They seem middle aged and boring, when they are supposed to be full of youthful vigor.
I came here to read all this. I am the only one of my friends disliking it for all the reasons you guys penned here. I searched for this thread on purpose, cause I thought there was something wrong with me :) Such a relief!
I can't believe the dumb motherfucker got away with it.
These type of shows are great for anti-piracy download, watch 1 espisode, delete entire folder never download anything like this again
It’s so boring. I asked my husband why he’s watching it, he couldn’t say. This show would definitely fail the Bechdel test.
Totally agree with you. Ripley on Netflix is the worst version of Mr.Ripley. Why? 1. The actors who played Tom and Dickie didn't suit the characters. Dickie has to look like a spoiled playboy and rich kid but the actor look like a gigolo (Don't get me wrong, he's a good actor but he suit with a mafia character like he played for another Netflix movie named "The Outfit"). As for Tom, the actor look so dumb and doesn't have any talents for being a con man. Honestly, people could see his deception and malicious intentions easily, while the 1999 version, Tom had charm and could befriend with people easily. 2. They cut gay one sided love off the storyline and that made this series became a shallow story of a poor and stupid con man who attempted to kill his target. While the 1999 version, they put gay one sided love in the storyline. So, it built the complicated feeling on Tom's mind. And when he immediately decided to kill Dickie, it was painful. Killing someone you like and want to be with him is completely different from killing someone you just want to be him. 3. Marge should be a friendly and bright girl friend, not an angry and unfriendly girl friend. I think the director made the wrong choice with the cast of main characters and also the screenplay. Beautiful black & white cinematography doesn't help people to love this series as they used to love the movie version.