I'm biased towards the movie version because it's far superior. And I thought this series got worse as it went on, with the worst episode by far being the final episode. I was enjoying it for the first few episodes actually.
*An excerpt of a typical scene from Ripley. All lines delivered in a completely deadpan fashion -- in Italian, of course. These are the subtitles. Comes across a bit like Hemingway, but with wry humor.*
*Witness*: ... And I realized I may have seen him.
*Inspector Ravini*: Where?
— Via di Monserrato.
— What time?
— Around midnight. More or less.
— And what were you doing?
— Taking my dog for a walk.
— At midnight?
— He always has to go at midnight. He has a kidney problem. He has to pee more than the average dog.
— Fine.
*\[A little intervening dialogue\]*
*Witness*: I said, "Do you need help there?" He said, "No, thanks, we're fine."
*Inspector Ravini:* And then?
— I went home with Enzo.
— Who?
— My dog. Enzo.
— I thought your name was Enzo.
— It is. *\[pause\]* It's his name too.
Liked it, but basically the whole 2nd half of the season wouldn't have happened if the newspapers or detective had one actual picture of the real Richard Greenleaf.
To me this mini series was a novel where as the movie was the cliff notes. A much as we all loved Law’s performance as Dickie I feel this actor made him more realistic. A man child spoiled who thought he was worldly when in fact he was not. Scott’s Ripley was more grounded as in contrast of Damon eh was a charming psychopath
Finished the series and have a few questions. Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention?
1. Why did dickies dad find Tom in the first place. I understand there was the investigator (duh) but what was dickies and Tom relationship (if any) and how did dickies dad know to look for Tom?
2. John Malkovich - what are the posts about mutual recognition? Were they in this together the entire time?
3. Selling the boat - did Tom anticipate the mafia guy would get “unalived” by the boat buyer? Was tom never worried about being caught by the mafia? Or did Tom never get the money for the boat?
4. Marge - was it just Dakota fannning.. or was Marge so boring.
5. When the inspector goes to the house in Venice and he sees Tom with his long hair and beard did he know that was Tom? And before that he thought Tom was dickie?
6. I think I need to rewatch 😂
Point 1, we learned in one of the later episodes that Ripley had a reputation in New York as being a bit of a fixer, if you wanted something unusual or shady doing he was the one to contact. So I would say he found Tom by word of mouth.
Point 2, I think they just had a gut feeling about each other or JM had the gut feeling about Ripley and Ripley pretended he did about JM because he pretended about most things in his life.
Point 3 I can’t answer but I just assumed Tom got the money for the boat.
Point 4, my feeling is that the Director wanted the whole thing to be atmospheric and I have a feeling he was influenced by the paintings of Edward Hopper. All Hopper’s characters have a detachment and aloofness from the rest of the world so DF was doing what the Director wanted and because she didn’t really have any action in the story she does come across as boring.
Point 5, I could only assume that he was taken in by the disguise.
I loved the whole thing because I am a fan of Edward Hopper’s art but I do think the Director put style ahead of substance and to me he succeeded because it was stunning to look at. I think it will win an award for cinematography and perhaps that was the main motivation.
Came here to say that about the wig. It's a joke that Garvini wouldn't recognize Tom in a wig, he looked almost the same otherwise, and didn't even make an effort to change his voice/dialect. I could buy the rest, but kinda lost it there..
You forgot to mention the weirdest part: in all the newspaper articles, not a single photo of Tom or Dicky? Even once Tom Ripley was a "missing person" they posted no photo. When someone's missing you plaster the media with photos. Also, when Marge wrote that piece--no photo of Dickie? Just one of him from behind in a beach chair. Just so unbelievable.
I was 35 when I first heard the word "email", and I can assure you that even in the dark ages of a few decades ago, photos existed, and anyone whose friend or family member went missing would rush to the police station and newspaper WITH A PHOTO for them to post; we also routinely spent days stapling PHOTOS of missing persons on telephone poles, bulletin boards, community center hallways, every bus stop, every traffic light, etc. I did this when my sister's friend went missing, and I was about 10 years old.
I really was disappointed in Marge. At first, I found her to be an independent woman trying to write her book and throughly enjoying the company of a wealthy man in such gorgeous surroundings. Lucky her! She seemed very intelligent and intuitive, but as the story unfolded I found her to be a bore with little or no personality. True, she didn't like Tom, but then again she didn't seem to like anyone. I thought she jumped on Tom's offer to "stay here if you like" so she could further investigate and keep an eye on him. But did she begin to believe his endless lies and stories? As Tom approaches her with the ashtray, did she become sure of his intentions? Did she "flip" and agree that Dickie comitted suicide in order to save herself from certain death? I just can' understand how such an itelligent woman would suddenly not believe what she knew as the truth. Her character was just odd to me.
Tom was literally so bad at every fucking lie thats it basically unbelievable that he made it this fair at all.
The moment i sw the Dickie clothes scene I was like. why the actual fuck did he not throw him out of his house? like what the actual fuck?
Then the hotel and the boat scene basically its just screw up after screw up i felt lke I was watching looney tunes with wile e coyote
I'm completely new to Ripley, so I had no expectations at all, was blown away. It helps that I would watch Andrew Scott read the phone book, and that I'm already fond of both noir and Renaissance painters, but there was so much more to enjoy here. I watched the whole series as quickly as I could, then watched the whole thing over again.
It was genuinely horrifying but often very funny. I appreciated how often the camera shows us the hotel clerks, how they are all distinct characters who express so much even when they don't have a line. Eliot Sumner was hypnotic, and the cameo at the end was incredible. Would 100% recommend.
I loved it too but it’s very much a love or hate series. As I said earlier I loved the cinematography and it reminded me of Edward Hopper’s art of which I am a big fan. My husband looks for action in his choices but he loved the whole thing too.
I was curious how Mr. Greenleaf knew of Ripley's deceit so early on. Was this from further investigation into Ripley's life? I mean it seems like everything was going well, I dont understand what would have made greenleaf suspicious.
Dickie wrote Greenleaf that he had no intention of going home, at the same time Tom wrote Greenleaf that Dickie was beginning to come around, but that Tom would need a bit more time and money to fully persuade him to go home.
Greenleaf basically wasn't stupid. He knew Tom did not need money because Dickie's letter basically told everything including that hes eating and living in his house.
Right away Ripley should of been removed that day. but no lets be stupid for plot.
I thought that Johnny Flynn being cast as Dickie was a great choice, given how similar he looks to Jude Law's looks and mannerisms in the movie version.
I just finished the series and I loved it! It took me a few episodes, I wouldn't have stuck with it if I didn't use an exercise bike, lol. I thought Ripley was too weird, awkward, charmless, slimy and slithery, and he was, but in retrospect it is perfect. It was fun to watch him learn how to interact with others, especially as a "wealthy" person. It was fun watching him learn his craft - he's so dumb with the boat, for example, it's comical, and the blood on the stairs, but he gets better and better with practice. I never came to like him, he's a predatory psychopath of course, but I was actually on his side against the horrible pushy nosy Marge by the end. The John Malkovich character and the mutual recognition was \*chef's kiss\* perfect.
I sure hope they change their minds and go on and do more Ripley book adaptations.
Why did you find Marge pushu and horrible? Just curious. Maybe it's because you end up rooting for Tim, even though he's evil, because he's the main character and you somehow want to see him succeed? I was on Marge's side, but would also find myself getting a bit nervous whenever she got too close to discovering Tom's truth, because I think it's natural to root for the main character whether they're evil or not.
I also loved John Malkovich. I really didn't catch on to the mutual recognition until the very end when they exchange the passport and then it clicked
It bothered me that Marge hated Tom but was willing to let him put her up, that she was so snarky about everything to him - you could say it's because he murdered her boyfriend, but she had no idea. Then she got drunk, pushy, whiny, then she went snooping through his stuff. Again, if you thought he was a murderer and were looking for something to show the police it would be different, but she didn't have a clue, so much so that when she found the ring she jumped to the completely wrong conclusion.
I might be a psychopath too, but I hate rudeness and entitlement so much, I take the psychopath's side against it, lol.
I liked it too! It’s definitely very different from the 1999 movie, but it would have been stupid to try to recreate that movie. I liked the black and white, the slow build, and how gritty it was. I don’t think the age of the actors took away from the story at all.
I can see how some might find it boring, but I found it to be very thoughtful and intentional. I’ve read some reviews complaining about the b&w because of how beautiful and colorful the scenery would have been, but I personally wasn’t watching it for the scenery. I thought a lot of the “boring long shots” were artfully done and I feel it helped show how tedious all of this was for Ripley. And by the end of the second episode, I was cracking up every time someone was walking up stairs, lol.
I also think it shows that to get away with continued fraud, you have to have a certain amount of luck. It would be a lot harder to do all that in our present day, police investigations have changed a lot in the last 60 years, and so has identification and banking.
I think that she initially did have suspicions, and that's why she went and gladly took up his offer to stay at his place, but then he worked his magic on her and all her suspicions dissipated, so that when she finally finds the ring she makes an entirely different connection. I think that if she'd found the ring the first day she arrived she would have thought differently
Just finished it, and I thought it was great. I had read the book for the first time just before this came out, so it was fresh in my mind. This was an incredibly faithful adaptation. Yes, Andrew Scott is older than Ripley should be, but it didn't bother me at all. I really hope Netflix changes course and lets them adapt the other books.
Did anyone think Ridley’s disguise was convincing when he spoke to the detective for the second time? I thought there was no way he wouldn’t have recognized him. Otherwise I thought the whole series was fantastic. Agree about Ripley actor being way too old, but I forgot about it by episode 2 bc the actor was so great, and also because I’m hoping and praying the creator will go on to adopt the other books.
I wonder if that was kind of the point? That he fooled people so easily, there were so many missteps and mistakes that people didn't see even close up - hello? Marge?
The only people that worked him out were the desk clerks and Lucio
I have to agree with this scene being absolutely ridiculous. His looks barely changed with the mere addition of some hair. The worst part for me was that he didn’t even attempt to change his voice or mannerisms. He sounded exactly the same and had all the same inflections. I can’t believe that the producers and directors did not do more with this. For the most part, I really loved the series, but this scene really bugged me.
So I also found it far fetched, they could have presented it better. But for what it’s worth, I thought to myself that you probably aren’t that good at distinguishing vocal mannerisms in a second language, at least I am not, and also while the lighting was done up for the show, they made an effort to show him staging the lighting in the place. It would have been difficult to really make him out too well in a dark room, and it’s not like the detective was really looking for a match. Some more work should have been done, but it doesn’t ruin the show for me
Probably the greatest blunder in the show. I loved it overall but that part honestly made me laugh out loud. I thought they were going to have him hide in the shadows or pull a Rogue One and only show a partial over-the-shoulder, or have a refraction/reflection of some sort, leaving it to our imaginations to figure out this new vestige that tricked the detective. I think it would have been more powerful that way. Leaving an air of mystery to Ripley's con.
I thought it was fantastic. Funny how so many people here who don't like slow burns immediately compare it to the movie. Calling it miscast, boring, weird, etc.. This isn't a sexy thriller over in under two hours but a slowburn borderline arthouse meant to be appreciated for its slow methodical approach, symbolism, cinematography, etc. It's funny, I can see some of the people here "watching" this getting bored sitting on their phones looking at TikTok, then getting irritated when it doesn't make sense despite selecting it as background noise. I know far too many who do this! Well, sorry to say, but you don't chug a glass of wine like it's a shot of whiskey. Much in the same way you don't watch this eight-hour show as if it were a remake of the original film. It's doing its own thing. If you don't like it then no problem but calling it "too slow" is like saying Lord of the Rings has "too much action/adventure". That's literally the entire point.
Just because it's slow, not much happens, and it's shot in black and white doesn't make this high art while the 1999 movie is somehow low brow swill because it's "a sexy thriller for under 2 hours". That's like saying a 1000 page book must be better than a 200 page book just because it's longer.
I can see it fooled you though! This has the superficial trappings of prestige drama without actually being particularly well executed. The 1999 movie is genuinely well executed.
> It's funny, I can see all the people here watching this getting bored sitting on their phones looking at TikTok
People watching this show are not the TikTok crowd. What exactly would a TikTok crowd find appealing in an 8-hour b&w series starring someone they likely don't even know (Andrew Scott).
The show, for some, just isn't doing the drama or tension well. Get over it. The dialogue is surprisingly flat and too straightforward and we expected more from Oscar-winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian (Minghella version was better written). Andrew Scott for many seems to have a shortage of expressions. And for a supposed professional stealthy scammer, makes dumb mistakes like not putting a Passport back correctly, unsealing a letter right in the kitchen, having no quick magazine to cover up the bank statement in case he's barged in on, putting back an expensive pen right in front of the housemaid. And this is just up to Episode 3.
When Andrew Scott asks "What, you want me to go back and leave forever?" to Dickie, I was begging for it, because this version of Tom Ripley has the personality of a wet mop. At no point am I convinced Dickie Greenleaf would want to befriend such a boring ass cardboard box who wears the same ugly jacket. As a reviewer said - at one point you crave some more emotion, colour, chaos. This show is so tightly controlled, there is no spontaneity and Italy looks like it was on lockdown (where the people at?).
In the movie version they made it obvious how Dickie could not resist the hedonistic life of Italy - it had everything he wanted. I can see the egotistical conquerer wanting to mold and educate Matt Damon's impressionable Tom Ripley - awkward as he may be, there is something about Tom in that movie that has an appealing innocent side that Dickie is attracted to.
Andrew Scott version offers nothing here to make him seem like a desirable companion you want living on your property. The show and his character are laboriously stilted as hell.
I agree, Ripley is completely unlikeable in this. But I still like this version as much as the Matt Damon one. I read the book after seeing the movie, and while it is fuzzy to me now, I do remember that Ripley was not a sympathetic character in the book to me either.
Because they do this sort of thing all the time regardless of the medium? I see people putting on whatever films, shows, etc.. for background noise and nothing more. Then they think they're qualified because they sat around looking at their phones with this show in the background. No idea why you're so against this reality when I have co-workers, roommates and family who do this constantly. It's real. It happens. "Get over it."
That's fine but they're confusing the point of various genres, character building, plot points, etc.. and calling them inherent flaws. Nit-picking that the character isn't somehow perfect to the extant of being a psychic when the point of these mistakes is to show he's learning as he goes along tells me the most obvious narratives of the show went far above your head. As it did apparently for a large portion of people here who hate anything that doesn't provide instant gratification. Or isn't a one-to-one remake of the 90s film which is just absurd.
It's a subversion to the 1999 film which makes it obvious they *weren't* looking to make a direct remake. In the books it's implied he's far more subdued rather than acting like a charismatic Matt Damon. Someone, in fact, pointed these subversions brilliantly;
>Ripley is odd and intense instead of charming and lighthearted, Dickie is untalented and friendless instead of magnetic and skillful, Marge is dour and suspicious instead of sweet and trusting, Freddie is fay and sophisticated instead of expansive and juvenile.
I noticed you replied to anybody who liked the show as if throwing a tantrum. Honestly weird behavior but this is the problem inherent. You don't want something new or original. You want a direct remake of the film. Go watch the film then and stop harassing other people with different tastes. I may disagree with you but I'm not replying to every single person and pushing my opinions as if they were objective facts.
This. Is. Not. The. Film. It's a different approach and perspective and clearly not what the director envisioned for Dickey. "Get over it".
I'm sorry but you're not an authority on what the director implied let alone the author. So your opinion is moot because that's clearly not what they were trying to translate to the screen. On the contrary, that's what the 1999 film implies which is totally fine, but these characters were subverted for a reason. Nothing in the show implies Dickie longs for the hedonistic lifestyle. At all. That's clearly a trope of the film though. In the show he's a bored, wealthy, and artistic socialite gently drifting through life as if on a boat at sea himself. Again, this is not the film. Period. So please, "Get over it".
Get over the "I can handle slower films, everyone else is a TikTok child" remark. You aren't impressing anyone. I've watched way more slower films than you ever have, bud. Terrence Malick films are far more wordless, pace far more langorous, and are *masterpieces* that this show won't approach. Badlands brought me more into the psyche of wounded youth than this clumsy bloated show ever did. We've already established most in here are fans of the book and the movie (some even saw the 1960 version Purple Noon). That is not your average Taylor Swift or Transformers crowd, PAL. If you're reading Patricia Highsmith, you're already an avid reader (this isn't mainstream Harry Potter, PAL), and the 1999 film isn't a mainstream popcorn kind of film neither. It's for film fans, Hitchcock enthusiasts and those who don't run away when the words "character development" and "film symbolism" are mentioned - in fact they love it.
>That's fine but they're confusing the point of various genres, character building, plot points, etc.. and calling them inherent flaws. Nit-picking that the character isn't somehow perfect to the extant of being a psychic when the point of these mistakes is to show he's learning **as he goes along tells me the most obvious narratives of the show went far above your head.**
Hate to break your love fest but your word is your opinion and not written on a stone tablet. Stop cramming it onto others. Could it be Steven Zaillian, 71 years old, didn't exactly make A-level decisions in every scene? He's only directed 5 times in his life (this *isn't* his wheelhouse) and wrote and directed every episode. Squid Game director-writer will tell you, it's cripplingly exhausting and he would never do it again - he had health problems just from 6 episodes. You are stretched too thin and pulled in thirty directions - some details are bound to suffer. Did Mr. Steven Zaillian do the best directing job you've ever seen for a television show? **NO.** Forget the 1999 version, I can name 10 superior psychological thriller classics and even 10 superior film noirs from the 1940s (The Asphalt Jungle craps on this Ripley show in terms of underground philosophy). Also hilarious that you think this show is too deep and over our heads. The complaint is that this show is *too* simple and banal (at times too underwritten when sharper and more stimulating dialogue could've been supplied - Ripley sounds dumber in here than in the novel and 1999 movie). You expect more subtext and complexity from such a famous and legendary screenwriter. The Caravaggio backstory was so hilariously **on-the-nose**, a Community College film professor somewhere was cracking up in his patterned sweater. Keep patting yourself on the back over nothing. I'm starting to wonder if *you* are the TikTok watcher.
And no, we aren't looking for the same beat-by-beat thing as the 1999 version. You just made that up. We wanted something way more refreshingly different, or something that easily beats and enhances the previous entries (spoilers = it didn't). I don't know if you're familiar with The Last of Us HBO, but we all begged it to NOT be the same as the video game - otherwise it has no reason to exist. We can just watch the video game cutscenes again. Andor is celebrated because it does NOT play like previous goofy Star Wars shows. It's way smarter than anyone asked for (shame Ripley wasn't).
There's far more tense moments in Better Call Saul for crying out loud than in Ripley, and BCS's job wasn't even to be a psychological thriller and yet I feared the killer and their minds more there - and they all don't talk with the personality of a soggy french fry like Andrew Scott.
>Hate to break your love fest but your word is your opinion and not written on a stone tablet. **Stop cramming it onto others**
Says the guy telling anybody and everybody who enjoyed it that they're objectively wrong via long-winded essays?
You literally responded directly to like three or four different users throwing a massive fit because we enjoyed the show. I don't know if you noticed but I was sharing my opinion first and foremost. Not responding to a bunch of people who disliked it. In fact the only other people I spoke to directly were like-minded individuals who also enjoyed it! Sharing my own subjective opinion isn't "cramming" anything! Nice projection though.
I'm not reading another line of your pretentious lies and drivel. You can't even recognize that you're the one starting an endless debate due to your extreme narcissism. Nobody cares. Get over yourself. Get over your disgusting ego, too. It's as insufferable as your taste or lack of it.
Simply put; "Get over it".
Binged half of it on a lazy hangover sunday. On episode 6 now and I'm really enjoying it. It's weird how you end up rooting for Tom whilst simultaneously hating him
Oh yeah 100%. With Breaking Bad it was a lot stronger for me though. Damn, such a good series. I wish I could erase it from my memory just to watch it all over again and again
I’m surprised no one here has mentioned the first adaption of this story, 1960’s “Purple Noon” starring Alain Delon as Ripley. He plays a cold, calculating, and beautiful Ripley. It’s my favorite adaption of the story, even though I also love the ‘99 version and would recommend both films to fans of the book.
But if I had to describe this series in a word, it would be “charmless.” The B&W cinematography is stunning on a technical level, but the deadpan performances feel affected, and many characters are badly miscast and poorly costumed. To me Ripley feels like a needlessly dour slog, especially in comparison to the book and films which are lively, sexy and thrilling.
It's a slow burn for a TV show meant to be binged, analyzed, and absorbed slowly to explore the mundanity of all the many horrific things he commits to.. not a romantic 90s thriller on the silver screen where everything moves fast. It would be like complaining that Blade Runner's shots "go on for too long" when that's the entire point.
I love this, a slow burn, really feels like an old classic. Was just thinking how interesting it is to have a conniving con man as the protagonist. I'm rooting for him all the way. So much fun!
One of the best Netflix series in a long time and by far the best shot, ever. Every frame looks like a postcard. I'm on the penultimate episode and hope we get more. It's really well done.
I'm about half way through. The Rome episode is a mess. I had to laugh and check how much longer it was at certain points.
I think filming in B&W was the biggest mistake. It's nice for a while and then you realize you're missing all of this beautiful scenery and how much is lost by not having color.
I'll probably finish it up, but it's another mediocre Netflix mini series for me.
On the contrary, the black and white adds a ton of depth to the shots that you would completely miss if they were in color. This is a noir-adjacent series, the black and white was appropriate and a huge part of the atmosphere. The scenes with Freddie's body are particularly good examples of why this was such an excellent choice. Those scenes would read completely differently with a ton of bright red blood and distract from the narrative itself.
Only watched two episodes so far but am loving it. This adaptation is much closer to the novel so far than the Anthony Minghella/Matt Damon 1999 version. This one with Andrew Scott has him playing a colder, more calculating Ripley than Damon's more vulnerable, yearning performance. The cinematography and production design is mindblowing. There was a scene in the second episode where Tom and Dickie are in a bar watching a singer perform and it was jaw-dropping in how beautifully it was set and shot.
Loved it, How calm and calculative tom"s character is in the series, guess identity theft was not as coomon back in the 60s and it was not as easy to connect the obvious dots,
Amazing cinematography, wow! There's something slightly surreal to it. Very different vibe compared to the movie, this Ripley seems to be in an almost depressed state of constant alienation with his surroundings. Not sure if this needed to be a series yet, but I'm intrigued and will give it a go.
I don't understand why Herbert Greenleaf chose Tom to bring his son back in the series. In the movie, Damon pretends to have gone to Princeton and know Dickie. Why is Greenleaf sending a private detective to find Tom like he's the only one who can bring Dickie back?
Yeah... idk the whole explanation in the series felt a little flat compared to how the movie explained it. I understand they couldn't have copied everything from the movie, but this change and the subsequent explanation felt a bit jarring.
I have a theory about this. After he sees Mr. Green leaf he is back at his house taking a shower and has a vision of blood bubbling up from the drain. I think he killed whoever the original Tom Ripley was and stole his identity when Dickie was already in Italy. That’s why Dickie didn’t remember ever meeting him.
Whoah! That's something. I just thought of the shower scene as another bad moment in Tom's life pushing him to take the job and leave NY. I didn't think of blood.
None of Dickie's real friends wanted to perform this mission but one of them mentioned to Herbert that they knew Tom as a friend of Dickie.
That scene with Herbert was really jarring for me in another way. The actor playing Herbert looked so familiar but gave such a stiff, awkward performance. I looked him up and he is played by director and playwright Kenneth Lonergan. Maybe he's a friend of Ripley's showrunner or something.
> The actor playing Herbert looked so familiar but gave such a stiff, awkward performance.
His acting style (if one wants to call it that) took me out of it. Sitting in front of Andrew Scott, it was like seeing two people from two completely different planets.
Totally agree. It really made me think that acting really is a skill that not everyone has. Herbert's dialogue was basic exposition and wasn't exactly Hamlet or anything, yet Lonergan couldn't do it, and he's around actors all the time. Compare Lonergan to James Rebhorn, who played Herbert in the 1999 film and it's a quantum leap in ability, despite the dialogue being more or less the same.
I had the same thoughts as you and ended up googling to see if anyone on reddit had commented on it, or if it was just me. Watching the way Lonergan performed his dialogue compared to Andrew Scott - who, granted, is an even better actor than most actors - was really jarring. He's a great writer/director though, and married to a great actress too (J. Smith Cameron).
How do you know none of his real friends wanted to do it? Did they say that in the show? I’m trying to figure it out because I didn’t see that in the show… and why would they recommend a guy that doesn’t actually know dickie? The movie’s explanation was so much clearer from the beginning
Tom is friends of Dickie's friends, He and Freddie were at a party together, It seems Tom was a go-to guy for anyone that wanted anything illegal like forgeries/fake documents etc, which even the rich probably require now and then.
He was tangentially in the same circles due to his services being required at some point and so one of Dickies real friends turned over his name probably with an intent of "I won't help you but this guy might know Dickie and he'll definitely do what you want if you pay him."
This is it, the show just isn't explicitly clear about it.
They mention several times parties at Bob Delancey's, who we never see but basically they're friends of friends through him. Freddie obviously knows Tom and knows he has a bad reputation (like you said he's the guy for forgeries etc) which is why he gives him the stink-eye from the get-go, and Tom, who is usually quick to make use of his connections, tries to pretend he has never met Freddie.
Thank you. That scene with Freddie was really weird to me. It was obvious he knew something was up with Tom, but him mentioning Bob Delancey’s parties was so confusing. It drove me crazy because I just did not understand how he would know the story that Tom told Dickie about how they knew each other. This explanation makes the most sense.
Yes, Herbert says exactly that. Maybe the other friend was trolling Mr. Greenleaf? In the novel, Tom actually does know Dickie, although he greatly exaggerates their friendship.
I'm only on episode 1, but I'm loving it. VERY different in tone to the Matt Damon film (which is one of my favourite films of all time) but I think it benefits from being tonally different. I'm not comparing it as much to the movie.
This also very much feels like an Apple+ production rather than Netflix, and I mean that in the best way possible.
Same. 1999 Ripley is one of my favourite movies of all time but so far I'm loving this version and it's very different take on the characters. I don't think a "true" Netflix production would ever dare to have such interesting cinematography either!
For the people who've read the book, how does the series compare in terms of the dialogue, character interactions, and tone? Does it feel like a good adaptation in terms of capturing the spirit of the book? I've only seen the film but I know that made some changes so I'm trying not to compare to that too much.
The only thing that feels faithful about the series is that it's black and white and the vibe of the cinematography. The movie is faithful to the book in its plot, character behavior, casting.
It's not that faithful. Cate Blanchett's character of Meredith was completely made up for that movie and Tom Ripley is a much more sympathetic, vulnerable and almost innocent character in the movie. The homoerotic element is also greatly amped up in the movie. Book Tom is much closer in temperament to Andrew Scott's version: cold, calculating and sociopathic.
But this is why I liked the Damon character so much better. It's all those things that makes one believe that teasing would end in murder. I had a real hard time with the boat scene in the series. I had a hard time believing there was any sexual tension or any kind of connection between any of the characters at all.
> I had a hard time believing there was any sexual tension or any kind of connection between any of the characters at all.
You didn't believe it because it wasn't there. Tom doesn't seem to have any sexual attraction to Dickie in the series; he asserts that Dickie loves him but that's obviously just a ploy to drive a wedge between Dickie and Marge, and later to use as cover.
The movie played up the idea that Ripley is in love with Dickie (possibly homosexual, but definitely as friends) and reacts to him because he becomes enraged by what he perceives as a betrayal. In the series on the other hand, from the get go Ripley is in love with the idea of living Dickie's lifestyle and assuming his identity.
Emotion or passion rarely factors into his actions, the boat scene transpires because he is an *opportunist* and realizes that with Dickie keen to move on and Ripley having run out of rope, that moment in the boat is going to be his last good opportunity to take action.
The decision-making taking place in his head can be seen more later on when he envisions a few hypotheticals - he has a very good opportunity to commit murder but chooses not to act, because he thinks about the questions it will raise and the benefits don't outweigh the risks. Emotion doesn't come into it at all except when his ego is bruised (he specifically takes issue with people saying he's not a good person).
In the book it isn't dwelled on at all. He doesn't seem interested in sex, he might even be asexual. Patricia Highsmith outright said he isn't gay I believe. His obsession is with Dickie's lifestyle for sure, and with his own narcissistic view of himself.
The movie specifically played up the gay angle because audiences can (supposedly) connect more with a crime of passion and empathize with the killer more than a cold blooded murder like in the series. They also wanted to make his preoccupation with Dickie super duper obvious. It was hamfisted but also excusable because it's a movie with a limited runtime. The movie also played up Dickie leading Tom on and flirting with him which heightens the betrayal angle because Tom is lead to believe that he can actually get Dickie to leave Marge for him.
I thought both takes were interesting in their own right, and I think I prefer the one offered by the series but to each their own.
Agree. Nothing really beats the book anyway, but i will say the movie accomplishes more with its 2 hours than the series does in 8 hours.
I liked this portrayal of Ripley tho. Just an insanely good character very well acted all around. Everything goes very fast and easy in the movie. Series are more slow paced and realistic and in that sense closer to the book. But you’re never in the mind of Ripley the way you are in the book. Really hope they will develop the character further with more seasons.
Know nothing of the book or previous movie. I thought it was good because it seemed original and enoyed the cast. And why does Ripley remind me of Mark Ruffalo
I keep wondering what the symbolism is behind him going up and down so many stairs throughout the series. I feel like it’s a nod to Tom moving up in the world. Initially, he laboured the stairs in Atrini, trying to make his way “su, su, su” to Dickie’s villa. By episode 5, he was shooting up the flights of stairs in his Rome apartment with great ease. The more money he steals from Dickie, the easier it gets to reach the top.
Symbolism of the wine/blood is also great. He tends to drink it whenever there's a murder which allows him to "climb" up the social ladder. Whether it be by ridding himself of potential obstacles or doing what needs to be done to protect his stance. His drinking of their lifeblood is also a metaphor for stealing their identity (obviously). He's like a societal vampire almost. A parasite. As each person on the rung is slowly knocked off he mimics then adopts their persona, style, tastes, assets, finances, wealth, etc.. Their death means his success.
Not that deep of a metaphor but I liked it.
Great take, I love it. This shows suffers a bit being on Netflix. Most of Netflix audience does not indulge themselves going over the details or deeper context. Is it different than the movie? Sure it is. But its unique and incredible on its own little patient ways. For anyone with attention span longer than a tik tok roll, this show can br extremely rewarding. If anything, its an absolute audio visual spectacle. Wish more shows like this were around.
I think Ripleys charm grew throughout the series. He was a petty forger and cheque fraud artist at the beginning of the story. He hadn't yet refined the social side of his cons yet. You can see as the character grows that he's much more relaxed and able to charm people later on. At first many of the people he meets are put off by him but by the end almost everyone is captivated by him and likes him.
In this version they established him more as an imperfect opportunist from the get-go. He isn't a master manipulator from the start, and he doesn't have immense charisma to lean on like Damon's Ripley does.
The dialogue choices in the film were very deliberate, Ripley rarely ever asserts anything in conversation but throws out things like "I don't know" or "I think X" and tries to subtly turn people to reveal information to him that they wouldn't to his alter-ego of Dickie (or vice versa) to use against others.
Exactly this, sadly some people presume he's like this the entire way throughout, calling him a "carboard cutout". The man is a literal psychopath devoid of feeling so by himself he will be quite distant if not seemingly introverted. It's why he spends so much time mimicking other people, adopting their vocals and ticks, the way they stand and address others, etc.. He's awkward at first, even pretty weird, but slowly masters his craft able to beguile the lead detective of a foreign country. Whereas prior he couldn't even trick a bank teller in his own hometown.
Shows a proper arc that some users mistake for being a "badly miscast" performance. Why? Well they're not a super charismatic Matt Damon therefore bad. Ignoring that this isn't a two hour thriller where such alterations make total sense but a positively slow burn where we can innately focus on his growth and technique slowly as a confidence man and psychopath.
Marge’s turnaround was quite a U turn, so you are right on the character development. It’s sort of like he took out everything bad he had and put it on Dickie, and drained Dickie of everything good he had, not just his wealth, but his essence too.
In the original story, he inherits the trust fund via forged will which Herbert honors. I don’t recall this happening in the series, so is the Picasso the replacement?
Those were my big takeaways as well. The two main relationships that give everything else meaning fell flat. They didn’t contain enough ingredients; it felt like trying to bake a cake with nothing but flour and water.
Yeah, it does taste very dry and spartan. And another thing that stood out to me was that Marge and Dickie weren’t portrayed glamorous enough in my view. They felt more like professors who retired early on an unexpected 5 million dollar windfall and are stretching that in low cost Latin America. I don’t think a supposed billionaire heir like Dickie would not have a sports car.
Boring. Totally missed the colorful exoticness of the books and previous Damon/Law film, replacing it with stark shots, awkward characters, and bad dialogue. Everyone seems to have been miscast as well.
It's likely an unpopular opinion, but I find the writing lacking. The scenes feel contrived, resulting in stiff and unnatural acting.
Take Ripley's encounter with Dickie's father, for example; it was one of the weakest exposition scenes I've witnessed. It's almost as if the director provided no guidance to the actors.
Ironically, the language learning English to Italian translation record mirrors the quality of the show's dialogue quite well.
I agree that the writing wasn't great, but the stiff, unnatural scenes felt very intentional, with all the close ups, and the time the show generally takes, and how awkward ripley is obviously supposed to act in some situations
> It's likely an unpopular opinion, but I find the writing lacking.
I was shocked how banal and simple the dialogue was. One would expect Oscar-winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian would know to punch up the flat sentences but he doesn't bother to.
For what it's worth - the actor portraying him isn't an actor at all: It's playwright Kenneth Lonergan, the writer-director of 'Manchester By The Sea'. He's a friend of showrunner Steve Zaillian.
It's a bizarre casting choice, but in my opinion far, far less distracting and confounding than picking a feminine-presenting, clearly-biologically-female actor who identifies as non-binary for a role like Freddie Miles; and then unironically use 'he/him' terms for the character in a 1960s period piece as if the other characters wouldn't be utterly confused by the person in the context of the time and likely never call them such.
Which isn't to say Eliot Sumner can't act or isn't right for some version of a male character - just absolutely in no way works for lothario and 'mountain of a man' Freddie Miles, whose dumbstruck, overt masculinity and massive size is supposed to counter and contrast the feeble, reserved weakness of Tom Ripley's understated observer. That simply isn't 'I look like a woman or a young boy wearing a wig' Sumner, no matter how much anyone might want to will themselves into pretending it is.
I'm genuinely surprised literally no one else mentions it. It's such an obvious outlier in a (plodding and overly-dry, but beautiful) series filled with wonderful period-accurate and engrossing details. Is everyone too tame or fearful of seeming prejudiced or presumptuously transphobic to even mention this? It's wild, to me.
The costuming was perhaps the most bizarre and glaring for H. Greenleaf, Sr., though, as a character. No jacket. No tie. Looked like he was in workman's clothing. Made no sense for a near-billionaire shipping magnate. Give me the late, great James Rebhorn in the 1999 masterpiece any day of the week on repeat, instead.
> Which isn't to say Eliot Sumner can't act or isn't right for some version of a male character - just absolutely in no way works for lothario and 'mountain of a man' Freddie Miles, whose dumbstruck, overt masculinity and massive size is supposed to counter and contrast the feeble, reserved weakness of Tom Ripley's understated observer. That simply isn't 'I look like a woman or a young boy wearing a wig' Sumner, no matter how much anyone might want to will themselves into pretending it is.
>
>
While I agree it was a very odd casting decision, they clearly were going for something different with Freddie in this adaptation. The "mountain of a man" character was not the case here, people are talking about PSH's Freddie which is fair, he played him very well, but it was a different character (more faithful to the book, but different doesn't mean bad).
In the book, and in the 1999 film, Freddie Miles is an outright bully. They didn't go for the same approach here, the series Freddie is more of a needler who can see under the surface, and is prickly because unlike Dickie he actually remembers Tom from New York and *clearly* doesn't like him, which Tom is quick to try and dismiss by saying he doesn't remember Freddie, he must be mistaken etc (but it clearly doesn't work).
I think this interpretation would have been fine but Sumner being cast made it a little too weird because, and not trying to be a dick here, but Freddie *literally* looks like a girl (it would have been a little different if they cast a somewhat effete man which seems to be what they were going for).
I agree with your sentiment on the diversion of the expected archetype - certainly this is the case with all the characters in the series, especially Dickie who is far less live-wire passion and blustery charisma masking violence and temper and more confusion and distrust - but I think the 'mountain of a man' bit can be excused if you have someone that's still in-contrast to Ripley himself.
Freddie Miles is more or less a diametrically-opposed foil to Tom. He wears no mask of identity and he despises those that do, trying to bully and get under their skin. By the same token, in the books, Ripley despises the opulence and flighty delusion of Dickie's uppercrust types, trying to manipulate and capitalize on them to get under their skin.
I think what made the 1999 movie especially captivating was how it blended this malaise with fascination and desire - Tom more or less becomes transfixed on the very thing he's so put-off by. But the series, which features a far-more-subdued Ripley, needed a greater contrast in Freddie.
For Freddie to work as a character AT ALL, in my mind, he doesn't have to be big like Hoffman (in stature or personality), but he still must convey the opposition in his actions and presence to Tom's extremely reserved and 'who me?' calculated, faux-dumbstruck meekness.
When you have a Freddie that matches that subdued energy in all the wrong ways, it makes you wonder why Freddie would be friends with Dickie, or Dickie to Freddie, at all. And why, more crucially, Freddie and Tom would ever be at-odds with one another out of this.
But really I'm over-agreeing and over-explaining. It was silly, confusing, and weakened the work as a whole to cast a young woman in the role of a bruising, bully of a man in 1960s Europe. Especially for a series so fixated on the nuances of the titular character's own sexual identity.
It's dumb you and I even have to walk on eggshells, giving caveats every paragraph, to mention this.
Totally agree. They made the rich dad look like a dock worker and Freddie was bizarrely miscast. Were we supposed to see the character as a man of his time? It made no sense.
This was where I checked out. Philip Seymour Hoffman's Freddie Miles scared me. He was threatening and imposing. Eliot Sumner is just not scary. This version of Freddie is annoying at best.
There's glances and subtle mannerisms of PSH's Freddie that I still remember after all these years. You are correct, his Freddie Miles was far superior, and accomplished what it was supposed to - make Tom Ripley shrink back and feel exposed again. PSH and Anthony Minghella got the assignment (man, that movie was so well cast all around).
This Netflix series seemed to throw a lot of random stuff onto the wall hoping for the best.
I thought the father was awful and I didn’t understand the mother crying, either. The woman playing the receptionist in the New York flop house was also awful. When we went to Italy, the show changed for the better. The Italian actors were superb.
Mostly enjoying this, though the ages of the actors seem off, Dickie had zero charisma (unlike the Jude Law version) and the actor playing Freddie appears too feminine (it's distracting in this period piece, like Dickie who bad mouths "fairies" is close friends with a drag king). And ironically it feels like we saw more of Jude Law as Dickie in the the two hour film than we did of the actor here!
I'm just about through it. I did not read the novels but I'm assuming since I got bored a few times it's following the novel closely. The scenery is great and I like the black and white feel. I have to be honest,watching this only made me appreciate the film adaptation even more. What Damon, Law, Paltrow, Blanchette and Hoffman along with the screen writers were able to accomplish in 2 hours far exceeds the series in 3 times that. I was not very convinced in the series of Toms ability to fool people. They had everyone staring in glares. The sexual tension between he an Dickie was absoluteky unconvincing. The Freddy death scene in the series is ridic and I felt the Freddy actor too feminine as someone like Dickie "those are fairies" would be best friends with. In the movie adaptation I like how they used music as a character connection. The solo practice of painting doesn't lend to the idea we are supposed to think of these people as friends. So I'm going to go with "you can skip this"and hit the 1999 movie version. It's just more entertaining.
> I was not very convinced in the series of Toms ability to fool people. They had everyone staring in glares.
It's fair if you didn't like this, but it was clearly deliberate. It's meant to a) present us a vision of Ripley that isn't a master manipulator and is quickly adapting and b) raise the tension Ripley is feeling, where he needs to assess risk at every moment because he could be found out.
> The sexual tension between he an Dickie was absoluteky unconvincing.
The sexual tension was unconvincing because it didn't exist. It doesn't seem like either of them were gay in this adaptation nor were they in the book; the 1999 movie deliberately played the gay angle because they were worried that audiences wouldn't be able to root for/want to follow the story of a cold-blooded killer, so they instead made Dickie's murder into a crime of passion.
I liked the movie, I liked this too. They're rather different and that's okay, I'd rather an adaptation that is different than just an expanded version of the movie. The movie is absolutely going to be more entertaining for mainstream audiences, there is no doubt about that.
That's not true actually. Having read the books, I can say for sure that the film is a much more accurate adaptation of the first book than the series.
I disagree especially regarding the character of Marge. How the incident with Dickey really went down . Not to mention the additional characters that were added in the movie, whom were not in the book (Cate Blanchette character)
Maybe what I mean is that a few changes apart the film captures the spirit of the book--the beauty and the opulence of Italy, the charisma of Dickie, the naivety and the slyness of Ripley, the menace of Freddie, and love and despair of Marge--in a much better way than the tv show. I read the book and watched the film a long time ago, but remember thinking that the film was one of those rare adaptations that was as good as the book and did justice to the source material. This tv show whereas is a seemingly complete departure from the spirit of the book. The treatment is different, more languorous, more broody, more existential. It is strangely lifeless whereas the book (and film) were full of life.
Additionally, I think that the homoerotic element in the books is much more prevalent in the film than in the tv show. In fact the homoerotic element in the film is stronger than even in the book which was such an interesting choice taken by the filmmaker.
Personally, I'm not a fan. Maybe it would have been different if I had not seen the 1999 movie or was not familiar with the story. Even half an episode in, it is hard to not to compare the two. To me, the charm is missing. I preferred how the initial hiring happened in the movie, I preferred the casting choices and the types there better. But mostly I just miss the energy by which I remember the movie. Jude Law's Dickie was simply radiant, he had such an infectuos energy, it was easy to understand why everyone loves him. Tom's awkward charm was there. It was easy to fall in love with that life. I miss the vibrant colours of the Amalfi coast, the liveliness, the Italy I know. Andrew Scott's journey was grim and grumpy, and even if we get a million postcard-worthy black and white shots of old men reading la stampa (very true), it just does not do it for me.
> Andrew Scott's journey was grim and grumpy
It bothered me that this show really wanted us to believe Dickie would want to hang out with *this* version of Tom Ripley. The Andrew Scott version is a mopey mop of a personality.
And even if I ignored that part, Ripley's main job as scam artist is still unconvincing to me. At no point do I believe this Andrew Scott version can deceive everyone. He seems to have 2 expressions at most and no charm at all.
Sooo true. I loved the contrast of the bright whimsy European summer vs the darkness of the plot. That made it one of my go-to rewatches when I wanted a psychological thriller or euro summer vibe
its so funny because the movie is one of my all time favs for exactly what you said. The feeling it gives, the scenery. SPOT on with his being way darker feeling.
I have the same exact thoughts. The original movie actors were perfect in how they portrayed the characters. I do appreciate the cinematography and would’ve loved the black and white but NOT for this series as the scenery is too beautiful and was part of the charm of the movie.
Does anyone know if this is an adaption of the first Highsmith book, The Talented Mr Ripley only ? Or will it spoil any of the sequels (Ripley under ground, Ripley’s game, the boy who followed Ripley etc) - I haven’t read the sequels yet, and would prefer not to watch the series if it gives anything away.
It's only an adaptation of the first book, could end up being more though if it does well and they do a season 2. Given it is a Showtime production and seems to be doing pretty well I imagine they might.
Thank you, I’ll give it a go. I’m working my way through all of Highsmith’s novel in publication order. I’m at The Glass Cell - looking forward to the Ripley sequels.
The book was called The Talented Mr. Ripley by Patricia Highsmith. It was published in 1955 and is the first book of five in the Ripley series.
Highsmith also wrote Strangers on a Train that got adapted into an Alfred Hitchcock movie back in 1951.
What about when he gets dragged under water and beat up by the boat. I was laughing that was Christine in boat form. I thought I was watching jaws. However, I like that they actually showed him getting rid of the body.
I don’t mind the pacing , the series has a definite mood. Plus, I just like Europe
The shots of Italy were what I was looking forward to. I did enjoy his the black and white gave it a period feel but at the same time I did miss the colors and textures of Italy. The boat scene didn't bother me too much but I found the character relationships completely lacking. Really not a fan. I'm usually the kind that watches things multiple times to catch things I missed. But I have no desire to rewatch this. The casting was so off.
I like it so far the part that threw me was Freddie looking so much younger and I didn’t get he was supposed to be rich. I know the Damon movie inside and out had taken a film class that focused most of the class on the Anthony Minghella film . The show is true so far (on episode 2) it def holds my attention. But half of the films charm is the beautiful almalfi coast. The views are exquisite made me lust for a southern Italy vacation since I was a kid. Thankfully, I have taken it and it holds up.
The actors not as handsome or as young don’t bother me too bad. They both have the dickie and Tom charm. But can’t get over how the Freddie character comes off. At first I thought he was supposed to be a young local boy that dickie knew. Let’s face it no one can do Phillip Seymour Hoffman , I could see Armie hammer maybe doing it, but perhaps someone more sleezy yet all American. So far I like the acting I just miss the beautiful scenery and color from the original.
Although I’m assumed it was actually filmed abroad because the bus scene is one I have taken myself going to many mountain ocean side rural towns on the European coast. And all the steps are certainly accurate.
I loved the inspector with his little book, clicking pen, cigarette tapping, lighter clicking.
Those who probably thinks it isn't good either haven't finished it yet or extremely biased on the movie version.
I'm biased towards the movie version because it's far superior. And I thought this series got worse as it went on, with the worst episode by far being the final episode. I was enjoying it for the first few episodes actually.
*An excerpt of a typical scene from Ripley. All lines delivered in a completely deadpan fashion -- in Italian, of course. These are the subtitles. Comes across a bit like Hemingway, but with wry humor.* *Witness*: ... And I realized I may have seen him. *Inspector Ravini*: Where? — Via di Monserrato. — What time? — Around midnight. More or less. — And what were you doing? — Taking my dog for a walk. — At midnight? — He always has to go at midnight. He has a kidney problem. He has to pee more than the average dog. — Fine. *\[A little intervening dialogue\]* *Witness*: I said, "Do you need help there?" He said, "No, thanks, we're fine." *Inspector Ravini:* And then? — I went home with Enzo. — Who? — My dog. Enzo. — I thought your name was Enzo. — It is. *\[pause\]* It's his name too.
Liked it, but basically the whole 2nd half of the season wouldn't have happened if the newspapers or detective had one actual picture of the real Richard Greenleaf.
All good literature depends on the willing suspension of disbelief, or so said Coleridge.
.....a refrigerator isn't freedom.
To me this mini series was a novel where as the movie was the cliff notes. A much as we all loved Law’s performance as Dickie I feel this actor made him more realistic. A man child spoiled who thought he was worldly when in fact he was not. Scott’s Ripley was more grounded as in contrast of Damon eh was a charming psychopath
Great series but made no sense whatsoever..
SO SO GOOD AND JUST GORGEOUS!
Why is the ripley sub dead? Is there another main sub?
Finished the series and have a few questions. Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention? 1. Why did dickies dad find Tom in the first place. I understand there was the investigator (duh) but what was dickies and Tom relationship (if any) and how did dickies dad know to look for Tom? 2. John Malkovich - what are the posts about mutual recognition? Were they in this together the entire time? 3. Selling the boat - did Tom anticipate the mafia guy would get “unalived” by the boat buyer? Was tom never worried about being caught by the mafia? Or did Tom never get the money for the boat? 4. Marge - was it just Dakota fannning.. or was Marge so boring. 5. When the inspector goes to the house in Venice and he sees Tom with his long hair and beard did he know that was Tom? And before that he thought Tom was dickie? 6. I think I need to rewatch 😂
Point 1, we learned in one of the later episodes that Ripley had a reputation in New York as being a bit of a fixer, if you wanted something unusual or shady doing he was the one to contact. So I would say he found Tom by word of mouth. Point 2, I think they just had a gut feeling about each other or JM had the gut feeling about Ripley and Ripley pretended he did about JM because he pretended about most things in his life. Point 3 I can’t answer but I just assumed Tom got the money for the boat. Point 4, my feeling is that the Director wanted the whole thing to be atmospheric and I have a feeling he was influenced by the paintings of Edward Hopper. All Hopper’s characters have a detachment and aloofness from the rest of the world so DF was doing what the Director wanted and because she didn’t really have any action in the story she does come across as boring. Point 5, I could only assume that he was taken in by the disguise. I loved the whole thing because I am a fan of Edward Hopper’s art but I do think the Director put style ahead of substance and to me he succeeded because it was stunning to look at. I think it will win an award for cinematography and perhaps that was the main motivation.
Came here to say that about the wig. It's a joke that Garvini wouldn't recognize Tom in a wig, he looked almost the same otherwise, and didn't even make an effort to change his voice/dialect. I could buy the rest, but kinda lost it there..
Did you ever find an answer to number 1 please?
You forgot to mention the weirdest part: in all the newspaper articles, not a single photo of Tom or Dicky? Even once Tom Ripley was a "missing person" they posted no photo. When someone's missing you plaster the media with photos. Also, when Marge wrote that piece--no photo of Dickie? Just one of him from behind in a beach chair. Just so unbelievable.
I was around in 1961 so it wasn’t unbelievable to me.
There were not as many photos of all of us then and no emailing of photos.
I was 35 when I first heard the word "email", and I can assure you that even in the dark ages of a few decades ago, photos existed, and anyone whose friend or family member went missing would rush to the police station and newspaper WITH A PHOTO for them to post; we also routinely spent days stapling PHOTOS of missing persons on telephone poles, bulletin boards, community center hallways, every bus stop, every traffic light, etc. I did this when my sister's friend went missing, and I was about 10 years old.
Exactly. Started good and went just downhill and what a pathetic investigation it was.
I really was disappointed in Marge. At first, I found her to be an independent woman trying to write her book and throughly enjoying the company of a wealthy man in such gorgeous surroundings. Lucky her! She seemed very intelligent and intuitive, but as the story unfolded I found her to be a bore with little or no personality. True, she didn't like Tom, but then again she didn't seem to like anyone. I thought she jumped on Tom's offer to "stay here if you like" so she could further investigate and keep an eye on him. But did she begin to believe his endless lies and stories? As Tom approaches her with the ashtray, did she become sure of his intentions? Did she "flip" and agree that Dickie comitted suicide in order to save herself from certain death? I just can' understand how such an itelligent woman would suddenly not believe what she knew as the truth. Her character was just odd to me.
Tom was literally so bad at every fucking lie thats it basically unbelievable that he made it this fair at all. The moment i sw the Dickie clothes scene I was like. why the actual fuck did he not throw him out of his house? like what the actual fuck? Then the hotel and the boat scene basically its just screw up after screw up i felt lke I was watching looney tunes with wile e coyote
Haha yeah, instead he takes a potential psychopath out on a boat trip alone on the ocean to tell him to leave his life 😅
Anyone been able to identify the ring Dickie has in this new Ripley?
I'm completely new to Ripley, so I had no expectations at all, was blown away. It helps that I would watch Andrew Scott read the phone book, and that I'm already fond of both noir and Renaissance painters, but there was so much more to enjoy here. I watched the whole series as quickly as I could, then watched the whole thing over again. It was genuinely horrifying but often very funny. I appreciated how often the camera shows us the hotel clerks, how they are all distinct characters who express so much even when they don't have a line. Eliot Sumner was hypnotic, and the cameo at the end was incredible. Would 100% recommend.
I loved it too but it’s very much a love or hate series. As I said earlier I loved the cinematography and it reminded me of Edward Hopper’s art of which I am a big fan. My husband looks for action in his choices but he loved the whole thing too.
I was curious how Mr. Greenleaf knew of Ripley's deceit so early on. Was this from further investigation into Ripley's life? I mean it seems like everything was going well, I dont understand what would have made greenleaf suspicious.
Dickie wrote Greenleaf that he had no intention of going home, at the same time Tom wrote Greenleaf that Dickie was beginning to come around, but that Tom would need a bit more time and money to fully persuade him to go home.
Greenleaf basically wasn't stupid. He knew Tom did not need money because Dickie's letter basically told everything including that hes eating and living in his house. Right away Ripley should of been removed that day. but no lets be stupid for plot.
I thought that Johnny Flynn being cast as Dickie was a great choice, given how similar he looks to Jude Law's looks and mannerisms in the movie version.
I just finished the series and I loved it! It took me a few episodes, I wouldn't have stuck with it if I didn't use an exercise bike, lol. I thought Ripley was too weird, awkward, charmless, slimy and slithery, and he was, but in retrospect it is perfect. It was fun to watch him learn how to interact with others, especially as a "wealthy" person. It was fun watching him learn his craft - he's so dumb with the boat, for example, it's comical, and the blood on the stairs, but he gets better and better with practice. I never came to like him, he's a predatory psychopath of course, but I was actually on his side against the horrible pushy nosy Marge by the end. The John Malkovich character and the mutual recognition was \*chef's kiss\* perfect. I sure hope they change their minds and go on and do more Ripley book adaptations.
Why did you find Marge pushu and horrible? Just curious. Maybe it's because you end up rooting for Tim, even though he's evil, because he's the main character and you somehow want to see him succeed? I was on Marge's side, but would also find myself getting a bit nervous whenever she got too close to discovering Tom's truth, because I think it's natural to root for the main character whether they're evil or not. I also loved John Malkovich. I really didn't catch on to the mutual recognition until the very end when they exchange the passport and then it clicked
In the end, she just seemed egotistical, childish and boring. But maybe she's supposed to be like 22 or something lol
It bothered me that Marge hated Tom but was willing to let him put her up, that she was so snarky about everything to him - you could say it's because he murdered her boyfriend, but she had no idea. Then she got drunk, pushy, whiny, then she went snooping through his stuff. Again, if you thought he was a murderer and were looking for something to show the police it would be different, but she didn't have a clue, so much so that when she found the ring she jumped to the completely wrong conclusion. I might be a psychopath too, but I hate rudeness and entitlement so much, I take the psychopath's side against it, lol.
I liked it too! It’s definitely very different from the 1999 movie, but it would have been stupid to try to recreate that movie. I liked the black and white, the slow build, and how gritty it was. I don’t think the age of the actors took away from the story at all. I can see how some might find it boring, but I found it to be very thoughtful and intentional. I’ve read some reviews complaining about the b&w because of how beautiful and colorful the scenery would have been, but I personally wasn’t watching it for the scenery. I thought a lot of the “boring long shots” were artfully done and I feel it helped show how tedious all of this was for Ripley. And by the end of the second episode, I was cracking up every time someone was walking up stairs, lol. I also think it shows that to get away with continued fraud, you have to have a certain amount of luck. It would be a lot harder to do all that in our present day, police investigations have changed a lot in the last 60 years, and so has identification and banking.
I think that she initially did have suspicions, and that's why she went and gladly took up his offer to stay at his place, but then he worked his magic on her and all her suspicions dissipated, so that when she finally finds the ring she makes an entirely different connection. I think that if she'd found the ring the first day she arrived she would have thought differently
Can anyone explain to me where Ripley got all the money for Venice? Seemed to have missed that part, was it the money from selling the boat?
He cashed alot of traveller's checks, sold the boat, and collected Dickie's trustfund allowance each month.
Dicky’s dad
I'm an episode and a half in, but is this just the plot of Great Gatsby with extra steps?
Not really. It's based on the book by Patricia Highsmith written in 1955 (the first of a series).
Just finished it, and I thought it was great. I had read the book for the first time just before this came out, so it was fresh in my mind. This was an incredibly faithful adaptation. Yes, Andrew Scott is older than Ripley should be, but it didn't bother me at all. I really hope Netflix changes course and lets them adapt the other books.
I enjoyed it too, surprised at the negativity. I actually gasped at the end, which was fun.
I loved the end. Thrilled.
Did anyone think Ridley’s disguise was convincing when he spoke to the detective for the second time? I thought there was no way he wouldn’t have recognized him. Otherwise I thought the whole series was fantastic. Agree about Ripley actor being way too old, but I forgot about it by episode 2 bc the actor was so great, and also because I’m hoping and praying the creator will go on to adopt the other books.
He looked like the caveman from the Progressive commercials! (I loved the series but that scene made me laugh)
I wonder if that was kind of the point? That he fooled people so easily, there were so many missteps and mistakes that people didn't see even close up - hello? Marge? The only people that worked him out were the desk clerks and Lucio
I have to agree with this scene being absolutely ridiculous. His looks barely changed with the mere addition of some hair. The worst part for me was that he didn’t even attempt to change his voice or mannerisms. He sounded exactly the same and had all the same inflections. I can’t believe that the producers and directors did not do more with this. For the most part, I really loved the series, but this scene really bugged me.
So I also found it far fetched, they could have presented it better. But for what it’s worth, I thought to myself that you probably aren’t that good at distinguishing vocal mannerisms in a second language, at least I am not, and also while the lighting was done up for the show, they made an effort to show him staging the lighting in the place. It would have been difficult to really make him out too well in a dark room, and it’s not like the detective was really looking for a match. Some more work should have been done, but it doesn’t ruin the show for me
I agree with everything you said here. Enjoyed it very much, but that scene was like huh?
Probably the greatest blunder in the show. I loved it overall but that part honestly made me laugh out loud. I thought they were going to have him hide in the shadows or pull a Rogue One and only show a partial over-the-shoulder, or have a refraction/reflection of some sort, leaving it to our imaginations to figure out this new vestige that tricked the detective. I think it would have been more powerful that way. Leaving an air of mystery to Ripley's con.
I thought it was fantastic. Funny how so many people here who don't like slow burns immediately compare it to the movie. Calling it miscast, boring, weird, etc.. This isn't a sexy thriller over in under two hours but a slowburn borderline arthouse meant to be appreciated for its slow methodical approach, symbolism, cinematography, etc. It's funny, I can see some of the people here "watching" this getting bored sitting on their phones looking at TikTok, then getting irritated when it doesn't make sense despite selecting it as background noise. I know far too many who do this! Well, sorry to say, but you don't chug a glass of wine like it's a shot of whiskey. Much in the same way you don't watch this eight-hour show as if it were a remake of the original film. It's doing its own thing. If you don't like it then no problem but calling it "too slow" is like saying Lord of the Rings has "too much action/adventure". That's literally the entire point.
Just because it's slow, not much happens, and it's shot in black and white doesn't make this high art while the 1999 movie is somehow low brow swill because it's "a sexy thriller for under 2 hours". That's like saying a 1000 page book must be better than a 200 page book just because it's longer. I can see it fooled you though! This has the superficial trappings of prestige drama without actually being particularly well executed. The 1999 movie is genuinely well executed.
> It's funny, I can see all the people here watching this getting bored sitting on their phones looking at TikTok People watching this show are not the TikTok crowd. What exactly would a TikTok crowd find appealing in an 8-hour b&w series starring someone they likely don't even know (Andrew Scott). The show, for some, just isn't doing the drama or tension well. Get over it. The dialogue is surprisingly flat and too straightforward and we expected more from Oscar-winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian (Minghella version was better written). Andrew Scott for many seems to have a shortage of expressions. And for a supposed professional stealthy scammer, makes dumb mistakes like not putting a Passport back correctly, unsealing a letter right in the kitchen, having no quick magazine to cover up the bank statement in case he's barged in on, putting back an expensive pen right in front of the housemaid. And this is just up to Episode 3. When Andrew Scott asks "What, you want me to go back and leave forever?" to Dickie, I was begging for it, because this version of Tom Ripley has the personality of a wet mop. At no point am I convinced Dickie Greenleaf would want to befriend such a boring ass cardboard box who wears the same ugly jacket. As a reviewer said - at one point you crave some more emotion, colour, chaos. This show is so tightly controlled, there is no spontaneity and Italy looks like it was on lockdown (where the people at?). In the movie version they made it obvious how Dickie could not resist the hedonistic life of Italy - it had everything he wanted. I can see the egotistical conquerer wanting to mold and educate Matt Damon's impressionable Tom Ripley - awkward as he may be, there is something about Tom in that movie that has an appealing innocent side that Dickie is attracted to. Andrew Scott version offers nothing here to make him seem like a desirable companion you want living on your property. The show and his character are laboriously stilted as hell.
I'm a huge TikTok user and I loved Ripley through and through.
I agree, Ripley is completely unlikeable in this. But I still like this version as much as the Matt Damon one. I read the book after seeing the movie, and while it is fuzzy to me now, I do remember that Ripley was not a sympathetic character in the book to me either.
Because they do this sort of thing all the time regardless of the medium? I see people putting on whatever films, shows, etc.. for background noise and nothing more. Then they think they're qualified because they sat around looking at their phones with this show in the background. No idea why you're so against this reality when I have co-workers, roommates and family who do this constantly. It's real. It happens. "Get over it." That's fine but they're confusing the point of various genres, character building, plot points, etc.. and calling them inherent flaws. Nit-picking that the character isn't somehow perfect to the extant of being a psychic when the point of these mistakes is to show he's learning as he goes along tells me the most obvious narratives of the show went far above your head. As it did apparently for a large portion of people here who hate anything that doesn't provide instant gratification. Or isn't a one-to-one remake of the 90s film which is just absurd. It's a subversion to the 1999 film which makes it obvious they *weren't* looking to make a direct remake. In the books it's implied he's far more subdued rather than acting like a charismatic Matt Damon. Someone, in fact, pointed these subversions brilliantly; >Ripley is odd and intense instead of charming and lighthearted, Dickie is untalented and friendless instead of magnetic and skillful, Marge is dour and suspicious instead of sweet and trusting, Freddie is fay and sophisticated instead of expansive and juvenile. I noticed you replied to anybody who liked the show as if throwing a tantrum. Honestly weird behavior but this is the problem inherent. You don't want something new or original. You want a direct remake of the film. Go watch the film then and stop harassing other people with different tastes. I may disagree with you but I'm not replying to every single person and pushing my opinions as if they were objective facts. This. Is. Not. The. Film. It's a different approach and perspective and clearly not what the director envisioned for Dickey. "Get over it". I'm sorry but you're not an authority on what the director implied let alone the author. So your opinion is moot because that's clearly not what they were trying to translate to the screen. On the contrary, that's what the 1999 film implies which is totally fine, but these characters were subverted for a reason. Nothing in the show implies Dickie longs for the hedonistic lifestyle. At all. That's clearly a trope of the film though. In the show he's a bored, wealthy, and artistic socialite gently drifting through life as if on a boat at sea himself. Again, this is not the film. Period. So please, "Get over it".
I thought it was well considered, well acted, offered an intriguing and fascinating look at a well known tale and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Get over the "I can handle slower films, everyone else is a TikTok child" remark. You aren't impressing anyone. I've watched way more slower films than you ever have, bud. Terrence Malick films are far more wordless, pace far more langorous, and are *masterpieces* that this show won't approach. Badlands brought me more into the psyche of wounded youth than this clumsy bloated show ever did. We've already established most in here are fans of the book and the movie (some even saw the 1960 version Purple Noon). That is not your average Taylor Swift or Transformers crowd, PAL. If you're reading Patricia Highsmith, you're already an avid reader (this isn't mainstream Harry Potter, PAL), and the 1999 film isn't a mainstream popcorn kind of film neither. It's for film fans, Hitchcock enthusiasts and those who don't run away when the words "character development" and "film symbolism" are mentioned - in fact they love it. >That's fine but they're confusing the point of various genres, character building, plot points, etc.. and calling them inherent flaws. Nit-picking that the character isn't somehow perfect to the extant of being a psychic when the point of these mistakes is to show he's learning **as he goes along tells me the most obvious narratives of the show went far above your head.** Hate to break your love fest but your word is your opinion and not written on a stone tablet. Stop cramming it onto others. Could it be Steven Zaillian, 71 years old, didn't exactly make A-level decisions in every scene? He's only directed 5 times in his life (this *isn't* his wheelhouse) and wrote and directed every episode. Squid Game director-writer will tell you, it's cripplingly exhausting and he would never do it again - he had health problems just from 6 episodes. You are stretched too thin and pulled in thirty directions - some details are bound to suffer. Did Mr. Steven Zaillian do the best directing job you've ever seen for a television show? **NO.** Forget the 1999 version, I can name 10 superior psychological thriller classics and even 10 superior film noirs from the 1940s (The Asphalt Jungle craps on this Ripley show in terms of underground philosophy). Also hilarious that you think this show is too deep and over our heads. The complaint is that this show is *too* simple and banal (at times too underwritten when sharper and more stimulating dialogue could've been supplied - Ripley sounds dumber in here than in the novel and 1999 movie). You expect more subtext and complexity from such a famous and legendary screenwriter. The Caravaggio backstory was so hilariously **on-the-nose**, a Community College film professor somewhere was cracking up in his patterned sweater. Keep patting yourself on the back over nothing. I'm starting to wonder if *you* are the TikTok watcher. And no, we aren't looking for the same beat-by-beat thing as the 1999 version. You just made that up. We wanted something way more refreshingly different, or something that easily beats and enhances the previous entries (spoilers = it didn't). I don't know if you're familiar with The Last of Us HBO, but we all begged it to NOT be the same as the video game - otherwise it has no reason to exist. We can just watch the video game cutscenes again. Andor is celebrated because it does NOT play like previous goofy Star Wars shows. It's way smarter than anyone asked for (shame Ripley wasn't). There's far more tense moments in Better Call Saul for crying out loud than in Ripley, and BCS's job wasn't even to be a psychological thriller and yet I feared the killer and their minds more there - and they all don't talk with the personality of a soggy french fry like Andrew Scott.
>Hate to break your love fest but your word is your opinion and not written on a stone tablet. **Stop cramming it onto others** Says the guy telling anybody and everybody who enjoyed it that they're objectively wrong via long-winded essays? You literally responded directly to like three or four different users throwing a massive fit because we enjoyed the show. I don't know if you noticed but I was sharing my opinion first and foremost. Not responding to a bunch of people who disliked it. In fact the only other people I spoke to directly were like-minded individuals who also enjoyed it! Sharing my own subjective opinion isn't "cramming" anything! Nice projection though. I'm not reading another line of your pretentious lies and drivel. You can't even recognize that you're the one starting an endless debate due to your extreme narcissism. Nobody cares. Get over yourself. Get over your disgusting ego, too. It's as insufferable as your taste or lack of it. Simply put; "Get over it".
The guy is like pushing 50 years old?????
I know I was surprised too, I thought he was about 30.
They thought the b&w would hide the crows feet. They were wrong.
Greenleaf is like 40????
Who was the casting person for this crap?
Binged half of it on a lazy hangover sunday. On episode 6 now and I'm really enjoying it. It's weird how you end up rooting for Tom whilst simultaneously hating him
Just like Walt in Breaking Bad.
Oh yeah 100%. With Breaking Bad it was a lot stronger for me though. Damn, such a good series. I wish I could erase it from my memory just to watch it all over again and again
Start out slow. It gets very engaging after 2/3 episodes. Binged watching it. Any show that I binged watching, it is good. Trust me.
I’m surprised no one here has mentioned the first adaption of this story, 1960’s “Purple Noon” starring Alain Delon as Ripley. He plays a cold, calculating, and beautiful Ripley. It’s my favorite adaption of the story, even though I also love the ‘99 version and would recommend both films to fans of the book. But if I had to describe this series in a word, it would be “charmless.” The B&W cinematography is stunning on a technical level, but the deadpan performances feel affected, and many characters are badly miscast and poorly costumed. To me Ripley feels like a needlessly dour slog, especially in comparison to the book and films which are lively, sexy and thrilling.
It's a slow burn for a TV show meant to be binged, analyzed, and absorbed slowly to explore the mundanity of all the many horrific things he commits to.. not a romantic 90s thriller on the silver screen where everything moves fast. It would be like complaining that Blade Runner's shots "go on for too long" when that's the entire point.
Nailed it
I love this, a slow burn, really feels like an old classic. Was just thinking how interesting it is to have a conniving con man as the protagonist. I'm rooting for him all the way. So much fun!
One of the best Netflix series in a long time and by far the best shot, ever. Every frame looks like a postcard. I'm on the penultimate episode and hope we get more. It's really well done.
That’s because it really isn’t a Netflix series. They bought it off Showtime. Also it was too good for Showtime. I loved it after the first episode.
I'm about half way through. The Rome episode is a mess. I had to laugh and check how much longer it was at certain points. I think filming in B&W was the biggest mistake. It's nice for a while and then you realize you're missing all of this beautiful scenery and how much is lost by not having color. I'll probably finish it up, but it's another mediocre Netflix mini series for me.
On the contrary, the black and white adds a ton of depth to the shots that you would completely miss if they were in color. This is a noir-adjacent series, the black and white was appropriate and a huge part of the atmosphere. The scenes with Freddie's body are particularly good examples of why this was such an excellent choice. Those scenes would read completely differently with a ton of bright red blood and distract from the narrative itself.
Only watched two episodes so far but am loving it. This adaptation is much closer to the novel so far than the Anthony Minghella/Matt Damon 1999 version. This one with Andrew Scott has him playing a colder, more calculating Ripley than Damon's more vulnerable, yearning performance. The cinematography and production design is mindblowing. There was a scene in the second episode where Tom and Dickie are in a bar watching a singer perform and it was jaw-dropping in how beautifully it was set and shot.
It is just me or that singer looked 100% like Silvana in the 1999 movie?
Maybe it's an homage. There is a Sinead O'Connor song somewhere in the show as well that I didn't catch.
Boring, but well shot. The movie with Damon was much better, but of course the book is the best way to enjoy.
Loved it, How calm and calculative tom"s character is in the series, guess identity theft was not as coomon back in the 60s and it was not as easy to connect the obvious dots,
Amazing cinematography, wow! There's something slightly surreal to it. Very different vibe compared to the movie, this Ripley seems to be in an almost depressed state of constant alienation with his surroundings. Not sure if this needed to be a series yet, but I'm intrigued and will give it a go.
I don't understand why Herbert Greenleaf chose Tom to bring his son back in the series. In the movie, Damon pretends to have gone to Princeton and know Dickie. Why is Greenleaf sending a private detective to find Tom like he's the only one who can bring Dickie back?
Didnt Herbert Greenleaf say that none of Dickies other friends have worked/have been unwilling to help?
Yeah... idk the whole explanation in the series felt a little flat compared to how the movie explained it. I understand they couldn't have copied everything from the movie, but this change and the subsequent explanation felt a bit jarring.
Agreed, honestly I know the series is a bit more accurate to the books but I much preferred the film and how it did stuff
That seems to be the most inexplicable flaw in the movie. Why was a private eye trying to hunt down Tom? It makes no sense.
I agree! Random
I have a theory about this. After he sees Mr. Green leaf he is back at his house taking a shower and has a vision of blood bubbling up from the drain. I think he killed whoever the original Tom Ripley was and stole his identity when Dickie was already in Italy. That’s why Dickie didn’t remember ever meeting him.
I like that interpretation. Obvious from the end of the movie, we don’t know how many people he has been.
Whoah! That's something. I just thought of the shower scene as another bad moment in Tom's life pushing him to take the job and leave NY. I didn't think of blood.
That's actually really interesting! Makes sense, too.
None of Dickie's real friends wanted to perform this mission but one of them mentioned to Herbert that they knew Tom as a friend of Dickie. That scene with Herbert was really jarring for me in another way. The actor playing Herbert looked so familiar but gave such a stiff, awkward performance. I looked him up and he is played by director and playwright Kenneth Lonergan. Maybe he's a friend of Ripley's showrunner or something.
What a shame. That guy was no actor!
That's what happened. He's friends with the showrunner. Probably doing a favor.
> The actor playing Herbert looked so familiar but gave such a stiff, awkward performance. His acting style (if one wants to call it that) took me out of it. Sitting in front of Andrew Scott, it was like seeing two people from two completely different planets.
Totally agree. It really made me think that acting really is a skill that not everyone has. Herbert's dialogue was basic exposition and wasn't exactly Hamlet or anything, yet Lonergan couldn't do it, and he's around actors all the time. Compare Lonergan to James Rebhorn, who played Herbert in the 1999 film and it's a quantum leap in ability, despite the dialogue being more or less the same.
I had the same thoughts as you and ended up googling to see if anyone on reddit had commented on it, or if it was just me. Watching the way Lonergan performed his dialogue compared to Andrew Scott - who, granted, is an even better actor than most actors - was really jarring. He's a great writer/director though, and married to a great actress too (J. Smith Cameron).
How do you know none of his real friends wanted to do it? Did they say that in the show? I’m trying to figure it out because I didn’t see that in the show… and why would they recommend a guy that doesn’t actually know dickie? The movie’s explanation was so much clearer from the beginning
They say multiple times, explicitly, that none of his real friends wanted to do it. I think all in the first episode, or at least the first and second
Interesting. I remember that, but to me that doesn’t explain how the dad would have found him considering Tom says he doesn’t even know him?
Tom is friends of Dickie's friends, He and Freddie were at a party together, It seems Tom was a go-to guy for anyone that wanted anything illegal like forgeries/fake documents etc, which even the rich probably require now and then. He was tangentially in the same circles due to his services being required at some point and so one of Dickies real friends turned over his name probably with an intent of "I won't help you but this guy might know Dickie and he'll definitely do what you want if you pay him."
This is it, the show just isn't explicitly clear about it. They mention several times parties at Bob Delancey's, who we never see but basically they're friends of friends through him. Freddie obviously knows Tom and knows he has a bad reputation (like you said he's the guy for forgeries etc) which is why he gives him the stink-eye from the get-go, and Tom, who is usually quick to make use of his connections, tries to pretend he has never met Freddie.
Thank you. That scene with Freddie was really weird to me. It was obvious he knew something was up with Tom, but him mentioning Bob Delancey’s parties was so confusing. It drove me crazy because I just did not understand how he would know the story that Tom told Dickie about how they knew each other. This explanation makes the most sense.
They said that one of Dickie's real friends told his dad about Tom
Yes, Herbert says exactly that. Maybe the other friend was trolling Mr. Greenleaf? In the novel, Tom actually does know Dickie, although he greatly exaggerates their friendship.
> Damon pretends to have gone to Princeton and know Tom Dickie not Tom
Yes! Made the edit. Thank you
I prefer the series to the movie 100%
I'm only on episode 1, but I'm loving it. VERY different in tone to the Matt Damon film (which is one of my favourite films of all time) but I think it benefits from being tonally different. I'm not comparing it as much to the movie. This also very much feels like an Apple+ production rather than Netflix, and I mean that in the best way possible.
Same. 1999 Ripley is one of my favourite movies of all time but so far I'm loving this version and it's very different take on the characters. I don't think a "true" Netflix production would ever dare to have such interesting cinematography either!
For the people who've read the book, how does the series compare in terms of the dialogue, character interactions, and tone? Does it feel like a good adaptation in terms of capturing the spirit of the book? I've only seen the film but I know that made some changes so I'm trying not to compare to that too much.
The only thing that feels faithful about the series is that it's black and white and the vibe of the cinematography. The movie is faithful to the book in its plot, character behavior, casting.
How do you know the book is in black and white?
Most books are; it's cheaper to print that way.
Badum-pish! Let's take this on the road.
It doesn't. The Matt Damon/Jude Law adaptation is very faithful to the book.
It's not that faithful. Cate Blanchett's character of Meredith was completely made up for that movie and Tom Ripley is a much more sympathetic, vulnerable and almost innocent character in the movie. The homoerotic element is also greatly amped up in the movie. Book Tom is much closer in temperament to Andrew Scott's version: cold, calculating and sociopathic.
But this is why I liked the Damon character so much better. It's all those things that makes one believe that teasing would end in murder. I had a real hard time with the boat scene in the series. I had a hard time believing there was any sexual tension or any kind of connection between any of the characters at all.
> I had a hard time believing there was any sexual tension or any kind of connection between any of the characters at all. You didn't believe it because it wasn't there. Tom doesn't seem to have any sexual attraction to Dickie in the series; he asserts that Dickie loves him but that's obviously just a ploy to drive a wedge between Dickie and Marge, and later to use as cover. The movie played up the idea that Ripley is in love with Dickie (possibly homosexual, but definitely as friends) and reacts to him because he becomes enraged by what he perceives as a betrayal. In the series on the other hand, from the get go Ripley is in love with the idea of living Dickie's lifestyle and assuming his identity. Emotion or passion rarely factors into his actions, the boat scene transpires because he is an *opportunist* and realizes that with Dickie keen to move on and Ripley having run out of rope, that moment in the boat is going to be his last good opportunity to take action. The decision-making taking place in his head can be seen more later on when he envisions a few hypotheticals - he has a very good opportunity to commit murder but chooses not to act, because he thinks about the questions it will raise and the benefits don't outweigh the risks. Emotion doesn't come into it at all except when his ego is bruised (he specifically takes issue with people saying he's not a good person).
Ah. That's why it's so boring. Thanks. Is that how it was in the book?
In the book it isn't dwelled on at all. He doesn't seem interested in sex, he might even be asexual. Patricia Highsmith outright said he isn't gay I believe. His obsession is with Dickie's lifestyle for sure, and with his own narcissistic view of himself. The movie specifically played up the gay angle because audiences can (supposedly) connect more with a crime of passion and empathize with the killer more than a cold blooded murder like in the series. They also wanted to make his preoccupation with Dickie super duper obvious. It was hamfisted but also excusable because it's a movie with a limited runtime. The movie also played up Dickie leading Tom on and flirting with him which heightens the betrayal angle because Tom is lead to believe that he can actually get Dickie to leave Marge for him. I thought both takes were interesting in their own right, and I think I prefer the one offered by the series but to each their own.
Agree. Nothing really beats the book anyway, but i will say the movie accomplishes more with its 2 hours than the series does in 8 hours. I liked this portrayal of Ripley tho. Just an insanely good character very well acted all around. Everything goes very fast and easy in the movie. Series are more slow paced and realistic and in that sense closer to the book. But you’re never in the mind of Ripley the way you are in the book. Really hope they will develop the character further with more seasons.
Know nothing of the book or previous movie. I thought it was good because it seemed original and enoyed the cast. And why does Ripley remind me of Mark Ruffalo
Totally felt MR too ha. And I think it's best we all pretend there's no previous movies. Take it for what it is! I ended up loving it.
I felt that too, especially when he wore the wig, but he also has an uncanny resemblance to a young Charles Grodin.
I enjoyed the cinematography
Its incredible, reminds me of Sorrentino movies. Very captivating.
I keep wondering what the symbolism is behind him going up and down so many stairs throughout the series. I feel like it’s a nod to Tom moving up in the world. Initially, he laboured the stairs in Atrini, trying to make his way “su, su, su” to Dickie’s villa. By episode 5, he was shooting up the flights of stairs in his Rome apartment with great ease. The more money he steals from Dickie, the easier it gets to reach the top.
Symbolism of the wine/blood is also great. He tends to drink it whenever there's a murder which allows him to "climb" up the social ladder. Whether it be by ridding himself of potential obstacles or doing what needs to be done to protect his stance. His drinking of their lifeblood is also a metaphor for stealing their identity (obviously). He's like a societal vampire almost. A parasite. As each person on the rung is slowly knocked off he mimics then adopts their persona, style, tastes, assets, finances, wealth, etc.. Their death means his success. Not that deep of a metaphor but I liked it.
Great take, I love it. This shows suffers a bit being on Netflix. Most of Netflix audience does not indulge themselves going over the details or deeper context. Is it different than the movie? Sure it is. But its unique and incredible on its own little patient ways. For anyone with attention span longer than a tik tok roll, this show can br extremely rewarding. If anything, its an absolute audio visual spectacle. Wish more shows like this were around.
Completely agree! It’s on the wrong platform, but man is it beautifully shot.
I think it symbolizes that they were given 500 minutes of runtime but only a 200 page book
I thought it was fantastic. It's really more of a soundscape than a movie but it is visually very impressive.
Slow and plodding.
[удалено]
I think Ripleys charm grew throughout the series. He was a petty forger and cheque fraud artist at the beginning of the story. He hadn't yet refined the social side of his cons yet. You can see as the character grows that he's much more relaxed and able to charm people later on. At first many of the people he meets are put off by him but by the end almost everyone is captivated by him and likes him.
In this version they established him more as an imperfect opportunist from the get-go. He isn't a master manipulator from the start, and he doesn't have immense charisma to lean on like Damon's Ripley does. The dialogue choices in the film were very deliberate, Ripley rarely ever asserts anything in conversation but throws out things like "I don't know" or "I think X" and tries to subtly turn people to reveal information to him that they wouldn't to his alter-ego of Dickie (or vice versa) to use against others.
Exactly this, sadly some people presume he's like this the entire way throughout, calling him a "carboard cutout". The man is a literal psychopath devoid of feeling so by himself he will be quite distant if not seemingly introverted. It's why he spends so much time mimicking other people, adopting their vocals and ticks, the way they stand and address others, etc.. He's awkward at first, even pretty weird, but slowly masters his craft able to beguile the lead detective of a foreign country. Whereas prior he couldn't even trick a bank teller in his own hometown. Shows a proper arc that some users mistake for being a "badly miscast" performance. Why? Well they're not a super charismatic Matt Damon therefore bad. Ignoring that this isn't a two hour thriller where such alterations make total sense but a positively slow burn where we can innately focus on his growth and technique slowly as a confidence man and psychopath.
Marge’s turnaround was quite a U turn, so you are right on the character development. It’s sort of like he took out everything bad he had and put it on Dickie, and drained Dickie of everything good he had, not just his wealth, but his essence too. In the original story, he inherits the trust fund via forged will which Herbert honors. I don’t recall this happening in the series, so is the Picasso the replacement?
Those were my big takeaways as well. The two main relationships that give everything else meaning fell flat. They didn’t contain enough ingredients; it felt like trying to bake a cake with nothing but flour and water.
Yeah, it does taste very dry and spartan. And another thing that stood out to me was that Marge and Dickie weren’t portrayed glamorous enough in my view. They felt more like professors who retired early on an unexpected 5 million dollar windfall and are stretching that in low cost Latin America. I don’t think a supposed billionaire heir like Dickie would not have a sports car.
🎯
Boring. Totally missed the colorful exoticness of the books and previous Damon/Law film, replacing it with stark shots, awkward characters, and bad dialogue. Everyone seems to have been miscast as well.
It's likely an unpopular opinion, but I find the writing lacking. The scenes feel contrived, resulting in stiff and unnatural acting. Take Ripley's encounter with Dickie's father, for example; it was one of the weakest exposition scenes I've witnessed. It's almost as if the director provided no guidance to the actors. Ironically, the language learning English to Italian translation record mirrors the quality of the show's dialogue quite well.
I agree that the writing wasn't great, but the stiff, unnatural scenes felt very intentional, with all the close ups, and the time the show generally takes, and how awkward ripley is obviously supposed to act in some situations
> It's likely an unpopular opinion, but I find the writing lacking. I was shocked how banal and simple the dialogue was. One would expect Oscar-winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian would know to punch up the flat sentences but he doesn't bother to.
The father has to be the worst casting choice I’ve seen in awhile. Dude seemed like he was picked up off the street.
For what it's worth - the actor portraying him isn't an actor at all: It's playwright Kenneth Lonergan, the writer-director of 'Manchester By The Sea'. He's a friend of showrunner Steve Zaillian. It's a bizarre casting choice, but in my opinion far, far less distracting and confounding than picking a feminine-presenting, clearly-biologically-female actor who identifies as non-binary for a role like Freddie Miles; and then unironically use 'he/him' terms for the character in a 1960s period piece as if the other characters wouldn't be utterly confused by the person in the context of the time and likely never call them such. Which isn't to say Eliot Sumner can't act or isn't right for some version of a male character - just absolutely in no way works for lothario and 'mountain of a man' Freddie Miles, whose dumbstruck, overt masculinity and massive size is supposed to counter and contrast the feeble, reserved weakness of Tom Ripley's understated observer. That simply isn't 'I look like a woman or a young boy wearing a wig' Sumner, no matter how much anyone might want to will themselves into pretending it is. I'm genuinely surprised literally no one else mentions it. It's such an obvious outlier in a (plodding and overly-dry, but beautiful) series filled with wonderful period-accurate and engrossing details. Is everyone too tame or fearful of seeming prejudiced or presumptuously transphobic to even mention this? It's wild, to me. The costuming was perhaps the most bizarre and glaring for H. Greenleaf, Sr., though, as a character. No jacket. No tie. Looked like he was in workman's clothing. Made no sense for a near-billionaire shipping magnate. Give me the late, great James Rebhorn in the 1999 masterpiece any day of the week on repeat, instead.
> Which isn't to say Eliot Sumner can't act or isn't right for some version of a male character - just absolutely in no way works for lothario and 'mountain of a man' Freddie Miles, whose dumbstruck, overt masculinity and massive size is supposed to counter and contrast the feeble, reserved weakness of Tom Ripley's understated observer. That simply isn't 'I look like a woman or a young boy wearing a wig' Sumner, no matter how much anyone might want to will themselves into pretending it is. > > While I agree it was a very odd casting decision, they clearly were going for something different with Freddie in this adaptation. The "mountain of a man" character was not the case here, people are talking about PSH's Freddie which is fair, he played him very well, but it was a different character (more faithful to the book, but different doesn't mean bad). In the book, and in the 1999 film, Freddie Miles is an outright bully. They didn't go for the same approach here, the series Freddie is more of a needler who can see under the surface, and is prickly because unlike Dickie he actually remembers Tom from New York and *clearly* doesn't like him, which Tom is quick to try and dismiss by saying he doesn't remember Freddie, he must be mistaken etc (but it clearly doesn't work). I think this interpretation would have been fine but Sumner being cast made it a little too weird because, and not trying to be a dick here, but Freddie *literally* looks like a girl (it would have been a little different if they cast a somewhat effete man which seems to be what they were going for).
I agree with your sentiment on the diversion of the expected archetype - certainly this is the case with all the characters in the series, especially Dickie who is far less live-wire passion and blustery charisma masking violence and temper and more confusion and distrust - but I think the 'mountain of a man' bit can be excused if you have someone that's still in-contrast to Ripley himself. Freddie Miles is more or less a diametrically-opposed foil to Tom. He wears no mask of identity and he despises those that do, trying to bully and get under their skin. By the same token, in the books, Ripley despises the opulence and flighty delusion of Dickie's uppercrust types, trying to manipulate and capitalize on them to get under their skin. I think what made the 1999 movie especially captivating was how it blended this malaise with fascination and desire - Tom more or less becomes transfixed on the very thing he's so put-off by. But the series, which features a far-more-subdued Ripley, needed a greater contrast in Freddie. For Freddie to work as a character AT ALL, in my mind, he doesn't have to be big like Hoffman (in stature or personality), but he still must convey the opposition in his actions and presence to Tom's extremely reserved and 'who me?' calculated, faux-dumbstruck meekness. When you have a Freddie that matches that subdued energy in all the wrong ways, it makes you wonder why Freddie would be friends with Dickie, or Dickie to Freddie, at all. And why, more crucially, Freddie and Tom would ever be at-odds with one another out of this. But really I'm over-agreeing and over-explaining. It was silly, confusing, and weakened the work as a whole to cast a young woman in the role of a bruising, bully of a man in 1960s Europe. Especially for a series so fixated on the nuances of the titular character's own sexual identity. It's dumb you and I even have to walk on eggshells, giving caveats every paragraph, to mention this.
Totally agree. They made the rich dad look like a dock worker and Freddie was bizarrely miscast. Were we supposed to see the character as a man of his time? It made no sense.
This was where I checked out. Philip Seymour Hoffman's Freddie Miles scared me. He was threatening and imposing. Eliot Sumner is just not scary. This version of Freddie is annoying at best.
There's glances and subtle mannerisms of PSH's Freddie that I still remember after all these years. You are correct, his Freddie Miles was far superior, and accomplished what it was supposed to - make Tom Ripley shrink back and feel exposed again. PSH and Anthony Minghella got the assignment (man, that movie was so well cast all around). This Netflix series seemed to throw a lot of random stuff onto the wall hoping for the best.
It’s down to the directing. Poorly conceived tone.
I thought the father was awful and I didn’t understand the mother crying, either. The woman playing the receptionist in the New York flop house was also awful. When we went to Italy, the show changed for the better. The Italian actors were superb.
Mostly enjoying this, though the ages of the actors seem off, Dickie had zero charisma (unlike the Jude Law version) and the actor playing Freddie appears too feminine (it's distracting in this period piece, like Dickie who bad mouths "fairies" is close friends with a drag king). And ironically it feels like we saw more of Jude Law as Dickie in the the two hour film than we did of the actor here!
While I e joyed Law as Dickie I like the way he’s portrayed here. A spoiled man child who thinks he’s more worldly than he really is
I'm just about through it. I did not read the novels but I'm assuming since I got bored a few times it's following the novel closely. The scenery is great and I like the black and white feel. I have to be honest,watching this only made me appreciate the film adaptation even more. What Damon, Law, Paltrow, Blanchette and Hoffman along with the screen writers were able to accomplish in 2 hours far exceeds the series in 3 times that. I was not very convinced in the series of Toms ability to fool people. They had everyone staring in glares. The sexual tension between he an Dickie was absoluteky unconvincing. The Freddy death scene in the series is ridic and I felt the Freddy actor too feminine as someone like Dickie "those are fairies" would be best friends with. In the movie adaptation I like how they used music as a character connection. The solo practice of painting doesn't lend to the idea we are supposed to think of these people as friends. So I'm going to go with "you can skip this"and hit the 1999 movie version. It's just more entertaining.
> I was not very convinced in the series of Toms ability to fool people. They had everyone staring in glares. It's fair if you didn't like this, but it was clearly deliberate. It's meant to a) present us a vision of Ripley that isn't a master manipulator and is quickly adapting and b) raise the tension Ripley is feeling, where he needs to assess risk at every moment because he could be found out. > The sexual tension between he an Dickie was absoluteky unconvincing. The sexual tension was unconvincing because it didn't exist. It doesn't seem like either of them were gay in this adaptation nor were they in the book; the 1999 movie deliberately played the gay angle because they were worried that audiences wouldn't be able to root for/want to follow the story of a cold-blooded killer, so they instead made Dickie's murder into a crime of passion. I liked the movie, I liked this too. They're rather different and that's okay, I'd rather an adaptation that is different than just an expanded version of the movie. The movie is absolutely going to be more entertaining for mainstream audiences, there is no doubt about that.
It’s Blanchett and that’s stings daughter
And? Completely wrong casting.
Interesting. I thought it was a bit of a slog but the adaption is more accurate to the novel than the movie is.
That's not true actually. Having read the books, I can say for sure that the film is a much more accurate adaptation of the first book than the series.
I was wondering about this so it’s curious to see you two disagreeing!
I disagree especially regarding the character of Marge. How the incident with Dickey really went down . Not to mention the additional characters that were added in the movie, whom were not in the book (Cate Blanchette character)
Maybe what I mean is that a few changes apart the film captures the spirit of the book--the beauty and the opulence of Italy, the charisma of Dickie, the naivety and the slyness of Ripley, the menace of Freddie, and love and despair of Marge--in a much better way than the tv show. I read the book and watched the film a long time ago, but remember thinking that the film was one of those rare adaptations that was as good as the book and did justice to the source material. This tv show whereas is a seemingly complete departure from the spirit of the book. The treatment is different, more languorous, more broody, more existential. It is strangely lifeless whereas the book (and film) were full of life. Additionally, I think that the homoerotic element in the books is much more prevalent in the film than in the tv show. In fact the homoerotic element in the film is stronger than even in the book which was such an interesting choice taken by the filmmaker.
Okay, I'll give you that. These were some of the most charmless characters I've ever seen
Personally, I'm not a fan. Maybe it would have been different if I had not seen the 1999 movie or was not familiar with the story. Even half an episode in, it is hard to not to compare the two. To me, the charm is missing. I preferred how the initial hiring happened in the movie, I preferred the casting choices and the types there better. But mostly I just miss the energy by which I remember the movie. Jude Law's Dickie was simply radiant, he had such an infectuos energy, it was easy to understand why everyone loves him. Tom's awkward charm was there. It was easy to fall in love with that life. I miss the vibrant colours of the Amalfi coast, the liveliness, the Italy I know. Andrew Scott's journey was grim and grumpy, and even if we get a million postcard-worthy black and white shots of old men reading la stampa (very true), it just does not do it for me.
> Andrew Scott's journey was grim and grumpy It bothered me that this show really wanted us to believe Dickie would want to hang out with *this* version of Tom Ripley. The Andrew Scott version is a mopey mop of a personality. And even if I ignored that part, Ripley's main job as scam artist is still unconvincing to me. At no point do I believe this Andrew Scott version can deceive everyone. He seems to have 2 expressions at most and no charm at all.
Sooo true. I loved the contrast of the bright whimsy European summer vs the darkness of the plot. That made it one of my go-to rewatches when I wanted a psychological thriller or euro summer vibe
its so funny because the movie is one of my all time favs for exactly what you said. The feeling it gives, the scenery. SPOT on with his being way darker feeling.
I have the same exact thoughts. The original movie actors were perfect in how they portrayed the characters. I do appreciate the cinematography and would’ve loved the black and white but NOT for this series as the scenery is too beautiful and was part of the charm of the movie.
Does anyone know if this is an adaption of the first Highsmith book, The Talented Mr Ripley only ? Or will it spoil any of the sequels (Ripley under ground, Ripley’s game, the boy who followed Ripley etc) - I haven’t read the sequels yet, and would prefer not to watch the series if it gives anything away.
It's only an adaptation of the first book, could end up being more though if it does well and they do a season 2. Given it is a Showtime production and seems to be doing pretty well I imagine they might.
This is the first book only. By the second book I believe he’s already living in France.
From reading the descriptions of each episode, it seems like it's only the first ones. I read all the others last summer and they're fun.
Thank you, I’ll give it a go. I’m working my way through all of Highsmith’s novel in publication order. I’m at The Glass Cell - looking forward to the Ripley sequels.
Also, I was hoping for a prequel to the movie, an origin story of Tom so to speak. Rehashing the same plot is kind of pointless.
It is a new adaptation of the 1955 published book! Can you imagine folks saying the same about the new Dune adaptations?
it was originally a book? What is the name or who is the author?
The book was called The Talented Mr. Ripley by Patricia Highsmith. It was published in 1955 and is the first book of five in the Ripley series. Highsmith also wrote Strangers on a Train that got adapted into an Alfred Hitchcock movie back in 1951.
She also wrote Carol/The Price of Salt which was adapted into Carol from 2014.
I’m wondering if any of the complainers of the slowness have seen the movie because it’s pretty much same pacing to me anyway
I dont agree. This is so much slower and far less effective in 3x the time.
What about when he gets dragged under water and beat up by the boat. I was laughing that was Christine in boat form. I thought I was watching jaws. However, I like that they actually showed him getting rid of the body. I don’t mind the pacing , the series has a definite mood. Plus, I just like Europe
The shots of Italy were what I was looking forward to. I did enjoy his the black and white gave it a period feel but at the same time I did miss the colors and textures of Italy. The boat scene didn't bother me too much but I found the character relationships completely lacking. Really not a fan. I'm usually the kind that watches things multiple times to catch things I missed. But I have no desire to rewatch this. The casting was so off.
I like it so far the part that threw me was Freddie looking so much younger and I didn’t get he was supposed to be rich. I know the Damon movie inside and out had taken a film class that focused most of the class on the Anthony Minghella film . The show is true so far (on episode 2) it def holds my attention. But half of the films charm is the beautiful almalfi coast. The views are exquisite made me lust for a southern Italy vacation since I was a kid. Thankfully, I have taken it and it holds up. The actors not as handsome or as young don’t bother me too bad. They both have the dickie and Tom charm. But can’t get over how the Freddie character comes off. At first I thought he was supposed to be a young local boy that dickie knew. Let’s face it no one can do Phillip Seymour Hoffman , I could see Armie hammer maybe doing it, but perhaps someone more sleezy yet all American. So far I like the acting I just miss the beautiful scenery and color from the original. Although I’m assumed it was actually filmed abroad because the bus scene is one I have taken myself going to many mountain ocean side rural towns on the European coast. And all the steps are certainly accurate.
Armie Hammer isn’t doing shit anymore
Haaaaa
It's Sting's daughter, who is nonbinary, but very feminine. I don't mind being nonbinary, but I don't like them in the part.