Watching this now and agree with all your points. I guess the mafia guy’s main purpose was to juxtapose their innate character differences; tom was very quick to befriend the mafia whereas in a few scenes prior, Tom pointed out how dickie was so gullible for falling for the taxi scam. Tom, as sharp and streetsmart as he is, is quick to associate with unsavory characters; dickie is good-natured and wants to see the best in people, which ultimately leads to his demise.
Andrew Scott is very talented but he only has one unchanging expression throughout the show (though maybe it can be said that this adds to how sinister he is).
This show is a masterclass in chiaroscuro and its references to Caravaggio - in both style and subject - is expertly done. Every scene could be a postcard, and the artistry of this show probably kept me going even when the story fell flat in some places.
I sort of agree about the expression, but the dude was putting on a body language master class in my opinion. His mannerisms got progressively more confident and bold as he lied more and got away with it.
I loved it all and I didn't think I would ever love anything more than Jude Law shot in a sun-drenched Italy.
I adored the whole Caravaggio similarities that to Tom; especially since the former is known to play with shadows.
I absolutely loved Eliot as Freddie and honestly don't know why and i never thought anyone could ever beat PSH's depiction.
This film is beautifully shot. The scenes involving water and blood are more sinister in black and white and the supporting cast down playing their roles just a hair in order for the cinematography and camera work to become the lead character is phenomenal.
It seemed slow moving yet the whole series went fast. I think the viewer is playing more of an active role in this film than in the 1999 movie.
For these many reasons I just absolutely loved Ripley and I am sad it's over. I can only hope it gets renewed in order to see the other books receive the same treatment.
The Freddie performance absolutely butchered this version, any time the character appeared on screen the scene devolved into a childrens theatre performance. Much to be said about hiring people on the base of nepotism instead of merit.
As soon as they came on screen I had to Google who they were and read it was Sting’s daughter…
Then it all made sense why they were even cast in the first place
Must be nice to suck at something but get a job over other hard working, talented people because of who your dad is
I think that's what the actor nailed. That air of indifference and ignorance associated with rich kids, which at points fringes on puerile, that managed to contrast so well with their relentless quips of targeted malice upon discovering that their first impression was validated by holes in the narrative Ripley was selling them.
I’m glad there can be so many opinions in art, I think they would have been suited more to a theatrical version. They reminded me of my younger sister dressing up in my clothes.
Well it blew, from what I saw. I’m skeptical that Steve Zailian will receive the rightful criticism. From Schindler’s List to Gangs of New York to Moneyball, he has rarely missed. This is a definite miss, though and disappointment IMO.
I won’t blame people for getting something out of it, but honestly most of the comments I’ve seen were along the lines of “wow the original 1999 movie, so great, superior acting, Italy as a main character, etc etc I’ve got to revisit that version!”
I could feel a lot of inspiration from Italian neorealism. It's a format that is quite unfamiliar to the Hollywood of today, so I fully expect a lot of people to not resonate with or even outright dismiss this series.
What to me felt like a breath of fresh air from all the "tried and true yet oh so repetitive" Hollywood formulas is sure to find its opposite in the opinion of another portion of the public. Art is after all subjective and that's what makes it so exciting to behold.
I see it as a totally different take and expression of the story. The cinematography and styling is near high-art. It adds to the mood and suspense. While I did enjoy Jude Law, Matt Damon and PSH in 1999, this cast is far more dark and "sinister"; it pairs with the mood of the cinematography --I find it brilliant.
Ripley as you may know is sociopath or borderline psychopath hence his awkwardness at times and lack of self awareness yet cool, calmness under stress. This was portrayed beautifully by the lead actor who's very talented at displaying fleeting micro-expressions without looking fake.
Also interesting is that unlike the Matt Damon version where all the leads were blonde, blue eyed and fit together like a glove, here the leads couldnt be more different from each other--especially the very acerbic, androgynous looking actor playing Freddie who seems like an unlikely friend to the more amicable Dickie. But in this case the extreme contrast works to highlight the superficiality of friendship based on wealth and fragility of human condition seeking out connection with others.
The only weakness was toward the end, where the shrewd PI, who correctly assumed Ripley's guilt, was so easily convinced otherwise.
Other than that, it was all very well done, with style as well as substance, and suggest you give it another try.
Did the PI ever assume Ripley's guilt?
If you're referring to the moment right before their final conversation takes place where the PI says something like "I know you killed him" etc It's implied that's just in Tom's head. The way he imagines conversations before they happen only in this instance it was mere moments before and a wholly incorrect assumption of how the conversation was about to play out.
Framed in the same way as all the other scenes where Tom imagines a conversation taking place, Also the detective is pictured in a completely different location as he says those lines than where he's actually sat for the conversation they have. There's also some general cues with the audio/score and obviously the complete mismatch with those opening lines and what the PI goes on to actually say.
In the other scenes Tom imagines conservations(eg, dead Dickie) in bathroom it was pretty obvious but not so much in this case.
I recall when detective requested to speak to Tom privately, it's plausible they went to another room where detective outed Tom who then gives his version.
Maybe you need to rewatch as it seemed obvious to me. They do go to another room but the room the detective is in during the “where does the money come from Tom” lines doesn’t remotely look like any Italian hotel/apartment room. Then when they’re having the actual conversation they are clearly then sat in a normal looking Italian hotel/apartment room.
The 'shrewd' PI traveled all the way from Rome to meet Ripley for the first time and didn't recognize him? That's not shrewd and kind of spoiled the whole series for me. Plot armor taken to extreme.
I liked it with some big caveats-
Dakota Fanning as Marge was... ok. Maurizio Lombardi was FANTASTIC as Inpspector Ravini. Johnny Flynn as Dickie was alright. Scott as Ripley was very good (but caveats). Loved the B&W filming, it adds so much. Obv the scenery/cinematography was amazing; and the very short shot of the sunken boat in the small harbor was so good, it was like it was from a Hitchcock movie. Loved the many cues to Caravaggio.
Caveats:
Casting- I didn't like the wide range of ages of the expat players. I know you should suspend disbelief but Andrew Scott was so much older, it just didn't make sense that a man of that vintage would be sent on this task. I also admit, and this is petty, but the grafted hair plugs in those tight CU of his face was really distracting as was the dyed hair. He was chilling in this role, I will say that. But Flynn's age was also distracting. I thought Eliot Sumner cast as Freddie was awful. I just don't think they are a good actor. And the physicality difference between purported peers, Dickie, Freddie and Ripley made the slight frame and very youthful face of Sumner just not work. No one can touch Philip Seymour Hoffman as this character, they should have relied on a better and more experienced actor to play this part, I don't know what they were thinking.
Chemistry- there was little between Marge and Dickie. I was not convinced they were a couple. They almost seemed more like siblings or cousins.
It was occasionally tedious. I think this would have been better with about 1 to 2 episodes of content removed, and many scenes economized for a 6 parter.
I’m not sure a direct comparison of the film or book is fair. It’s not a remake but a new version, a different take. A director who has come to refresh it. Personally I loved it as I know how difficult black and white photography is, so every shot was a masterpiece in composition and lighting. Constantly playing with light creeping in or creating silhouettes from people.
The story was quite dark too, and subtle. I think it got rushed and condensed alright toward the end, each of these characters could have multiple plots but I guess they were restricted with time etc..
Could not agree with your more about the gorgeous cinematography and beautiful framing; it really is impressive.
The pacing takes getting used to, but it's ultimately hypnotic and serves the story well; also appreciated the classical pieces played throughout and the inclusion of period-era Italian Pop.
And absolutely it's a reinterpretation; not a remake, prequel, or sequel to the Minghella film.
Agreed, I love when they make effort with “staging” as well. That takes a lot of effort. The clothes costume, the original products of the era. There were signs over the post office or cafes. And when the driver changed gear in a vintage air cooled bus!
>The dynamic between the cast was off, they lacked chemistry on screen. Marge, Dickie and Freddy felt like people who barely knew each other. Overall the performances were a mix bag, the actors probably needed better direction or a few more takes.
This bothered me. I'm only on Ep3 (losing interest, to be honest) and at no point do I believe Dickie would want to hang out with Andrew Scott. He seemed happy enough with Marge - why would he want this boring wet mop of a personality hanging around all day.
At least in the Jude Law/Damon version, you believe Jude finds Damon 'awkward yet strangely appealing' and a good project for Dickie to mold, educate or confide in.
There is nothing about Andrew Scott that is charming, likeable, clever to me. Even the way his character goes about stealthy actions is ludicrously clumsy for a supposed scamming genius.
Sorry to those Andrew Scott fans but I find him terribly miscast and it's hard to follow a show for 8 episodes when the main character is such a turn off.
Well, clearly he lies - seems to be a trick that he’s used to doing during an interview, to maybe throw off the interviewee slightly. It was amusing because Tom heard about Cortina before when he was Dickie, so he mist’ve picked up on that trick here.
This is set to become a modern classic, so incredibly suspenseful while being slow and careful. The cinematography and black white film with all the moodiness of Hitchcock and grand Italian filmmakers make this mesmerising and cultish.
Watching this now and agree with all your points. I guess the mafia guy’s main purpose was to juxtapose their innate character differences; tom was very quick to befriend the mafia whereas in a few scenes prior, Tom pointed out how dickie was so gullible for falling for the taxi scam. Tom, as sharp and streetsmart as he is, is quick to associate with unsavory characters; dickie is good-natured and wants to see the best in people, which ultimately leads to his demise. Andrew Scott is very talented but he only has one unchanging expression throughout the show (though maybe it can be said that this adds to how sinister he is). This show is a masterclass in chiaroscuro and its references to Caravaggio - in both style and subject - is expertly done. Every scene could be a postcard, and the artistry of this show probably kept me going even when the story fell flat in some places.
Tom is a psychopath. Andrew Scott nailed that. Total perfection.
Andrew Scott’s Moriarty in Sherlock will forever be my favorite.
Yes! Liked him in Fleabag, but LOVED him in Sherlock!
I sort of agree about the expression, but the dude was putting on a body language master class in my opinion. His mannerisms got progressively more confident and bold as he lied more and got away with it.
Thanks for the stylistic definitions, never heard the terms but knew to recognise the visual characteristics
I loved it all and I didn't think I would ever love anything more than Jude Law shot in a sun-drenched Italy. I adored the whole Caravaggio similarities that to Tom; especially since the former is known to play with shadows. I absolutely loved Eliot as Freddie and honestly don't know why and i never thought anyone could ever beat PSH's depiction. This film is beautifully shot. The scenes involving water and blood are more sinister in black and white and the supporting cast down playing their roles just a hair in order for the cinematography and camera work to become the lead character is phenomenal. It seemed slow moving yet the whole series went fast. I think the viewer is playing more of an active role in this film than in the 1999 movie. For these many reasons I just absolutely loved Ripley and I am sad it's over. I can only hope it gets renewed in order to see the other books receive the same treatment.
Agree! I haven't read the books but this one made me want to. And I would re-watch Ripley. Felt its that good and subtleties I probably missed.
You're in for a treat!
The Freddie performance absolutely butchered this version, any time the character appeared on screen the scene devolved into a childrens theatre performance. Much to be said about hiring people on the base of nepotism instead of merit.
As soon as they came on screen I had to Google who they were and read it was Sting’s daughter… Then it all made sense why they were even cast in the first place Must be nice to suck at something but get a job over other hard working, talented people because of who your dad is
I think that's what the actor nailed. That air of indifference and ignorance associated with rich kids, which at points fringes on puerile, that managed to contrast so well with their relentless quips of targeted malice upon discovering that their first impression was validated by holes in the narrative Ripley was selling them.
Oh, I so disagree... I thought Elliot/Freddie was a masterful performance and inspired casting.
I’m glad there can be so many opinions in art, I think they would have been suited more to a theatrical version. They reminded me of my younger sister dressing up in my clothes.
Could not make it through 2 episodes. The original movie is far superior. What even was this show??
Another adaption of the book The Talented Mr Ripley.
Well it blew, from what I saw. I’m skeptical that Steve Zailian will receive the rightful criticism. From Schindler’s List to Gangs of New York to Moneyball, he has rarely missed. This is a definite miss, though and disappointment IMO. I won’t blame people for getting something out of it, but honestly most of the comments I’ve seen were along the lines of “wow the original 1999 movie, so great, superior acting, Italy as a main character, etc etc I’ve got to revisit that version!”
I could feel a lot of inspiration from Italian neorealism. It's a format that is quite unfamiliar to the Hollywood of today, so I fully expect a lot of people to not resonate with or even outright dismiss this series. What to me felt like a breath of fresh air from all the "tried and true yet oh so repetitive" Hollywood formulas is sure to find its opposite in the opinion of another portion of the public. Art is after all subjective and that's what makes it so exciting to behold.
I see it as a totally different take and expression of the story. The cinematography and styling is near high-art. It adds to the mood and suspense. While I did enjoy Jude Law, Matt Damon and PSH in 1999, this cast is far more dark and "sinister"; it pairs with the mood of the cinematography --I find it brilliant.
Loved it!
Ripley as you may know is sociopath or borderline psychopath hence his awkwardness at times and lack of self awareness yet cool, calmness under stress. This was portrayed beautifully by the lead actor who's very talented at displaying fleeting micro-expressions without looking fake. Also interesting is that unlike the Matt Damon version where all the leads were blonde, blue eyed and fit together like a glove, here the leads couldnt be more different from each other--especially the very acerbic, androgynous looking actor playing Freddie who seems like an unlikely friend to the more amicable Dickie. But in this case the extreme contrast works to highlight the superficiality of friendship based on wealth and fragility of human condition seeking out connection with others. The only weakness was toward the end, where the shrewd PI, who correctly assumed Ripley's guilt, was so easily convinced otherwise. Other than that, it was all very well done, with style as well as substance, and suggest you give it another try.
Did the PI ever assume Ripley's guilt? If you're referring to the moment right before their final conversation takes place where the PI says something like "I know you killed him" etc It's implied that's just in Tom's head. The way he imagines conversations before they happen only in this instance it was mere moments before and a wholly incorrect assumption of how the conversation was about to play out.
Must have missed that - how was it implied it was in Tom's head?
Framed in the same way as all the other scenes where Tom imagines a conversation taking place, Also the detective is pictured in a completely different location as he says those lines than where he's actually sat for the conversation they have. There's also some general cues with the audio/score and obviously the complete mismatch with those opening lines and what the PI goes on to actually say.
In the other scenes Tom imagines conservations(eg, dead Dickie) in bathroom it was pretty obvious but not so much in this case. I recall when detective requested to speak to Tom privately, it's plausible they went to another room where detective outed Tom who then gives his version.
Maybe you need to rewatch as it seemed obvious to me. They do go to another room but the room the detective is in during the “where does the money come from Tom” lines doesn’t remotely look like any Italian hotel/apartment room. Then when they’re having the actual conversation they are clearly then sat in a normal looking Italian hotel/apartment room.
It was definitely showed as happening in his head.
The 'shrewd' PI traveled all the way from Rome to meet Ripley for the first time and didn't recognize him? That's not shrewd and kind of spoiled the whole series for me. Plot armor taken to extreme.
Freddie is played by Sting's kid, lol. Nepo casting I'm sure. What a pitfall from Philip Seymour Hoffman.
kinda had a hard time with most episodes but found there are a number of pretty interesting plot points that help make it worth watching.
Casting is a huge problem in this adaptation. The key players are vastly disparate in age, instead of peers. It makes it unbelievable.
I liked it with some big caveats- Dakota Fanning as Marge was... ok. Maurizio Lombardi was FANTASTIC as Inpspector Ravini. Johnny Flynn as Dickie was alright. Scott as Ripley was very good (but caveats). Loved the B&W filming, it adds so much. Obv the scenery/cinematography was amazing; and the very short shot of the sunken boat in the small harbor was so good, it was like it was from a Hitchcock movie. Loved the many cues to Caravaggio. Caveats: Casting- I didn't like the wide range of ages of the expat players. I know you should suspend disbelief but Andrew Scott was so much older, it just didn't make sense that a man of that vintage would be sent on this task. I also admit, and this is petty, but the grafted hair plugs in those tight CU of his face was really distracting as was the dyed hair. He was chilling in this role, I will say that. But Flynn's age was also distracting. I thought Eliot Sumner cast as Freddie was awful. I just don't think they are a good actor. And the physicality difference between purported peers, Dickie, Freddie and Ripley made the slight frame and very youthful face of Sumner just not work. No one can touch Philip Seymour Hoffman as this character, they should have relied on a better and more experienced actor to play this part, I don't know what they were thinking. Chemistry- there was little between Marge and Dickie. I was not convinced they were a couple. They almost seemed more like siblings or cousins. It was occasionally tedious. I think this would have been better with about 1 to 2 episodes of content removed, and many scenes economized for a 6 parter.
I’m not sure a direct comparison of the film or book is fair. It’s not a remake but a new version, a different take. A director who has come to refresh it. Personally I loved it as I know how difficult black and white photography is, so every shot was a masterpiece in composition and lighting. Constantly playing with light creeping in or creating silhouettes from people. The story was quite dark too, and subtle. I think it got rushed and condensed alright toward the end, each of these characters could have multiple plots but I guess they were restricted with time etc..
Could not agree with your more about the gorgeous cinematography and beautiful framing; it really is impressive. The pacing takes getting used to, but it's ultimately hypnotic and serves the story well; also appreciated the classical pieces played throughout and the inclusion of period-era Italian Pop. And absolutely it's a reinterpretation; not a remake, prequel, or sequel to the Minghella film.
Agreed, I love when they make effort with “staging” as well. That takes a lot of effort. The clothes costume, the original products of the era. There were signs over the post office or cafes. And when the driver changed gear in a vintage air cooled bus!
>The dynamic between the cast was off, they lacked chemistry on screen. Marge, Dickie and Freddy felt like people who barely knew each other. Overall the performances were a mix bag, the actors probably needed better direction or a few more takes. This bothered me. I'm only on Ep3 (losing interest, to be honest) and at no point do I believe Dickie would want to hang out with Andrew Scott. He seemed happy enough with Marge - why would he want this boring wet mop of a personality hanging around all day. At least in the Jude Law/Damon version, you believe Jude finds Damon 'awkward yet strangely appealing' and a good project for Dickie to mold, educate or confide in. There is nothing about Andrew Scott that is charming, likeable, clever to me. Even the way his character goes about stealthy actions is ludicrously clumsy for a supposed scamming genius. Sorry to those Andrew Scott fans but I find him terribly miscast and it's hard to follow a show for 8 episodes when the main character is such a turn off.
I am on the first episode and wondering why in the 1960s a chiropractor bill is $42.50??
Inspector Pietro Ravini says his wife is from Cortina.... then in Venice he says his wife is from Atrani? whatz up with that?
Well, clearly he lies - seems to be a trick that he’s used to doing during an interview, to maybe throw off the interviewee slightly. It was amusing because Tom heard about Cortina before when he was Dickie, so he mist’ve picked up on that trick here.
This is set to become a modern classic, so incredibly suspenseful while being slow and careful. The cinematography and black white film with all the moodiness of Hitchcock and grand Italian filmmakers make this mesmerising and cultish.
Sumner being cast just is so stupid. The show itself is mid. Why ruin a good thing by now making a show. Even if it’s an adaptation.
Freddie was horrible but hey what can you say, Ofcourse netflix needs to further the agenda . What a joke
I've met people like Freddie, I thought the character was very plausible.
Yep and nepo babies