Netflix Ripley adaptation review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2024
- Andrew Scott stars in the Netflix adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley. Does the show measure up to the previous two adaptations? Hear my thoughts on how this compares with the book and movies!
Talented Mr. Ripley book vs movie • The Talented Mr. Riple...
reviewing every Ripley movie • reviewing every Tom Ri...
NordVPN: go.nordvpn.net/aff_c?offer_id...
NordPass: go.nordpass.io/aff_c?offer_id...
storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/whytheboo...
Instagram: / whythebookwins
Website: whythebookwins.com/
Goodreads: / laura-whythebookwins
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/whythebookwins/
Tiktok: / whythebookwins
my video equipment amzn.to/3NlPkdu
bookshelf decor and products amzn.to/3RB4Jcx
00:00 intro
01:28 Ripley adaptations
02:12 no spoiler Ripley review
11:44 Tom’s orientation
13:03 spoiler thoughts
I loved the slow pace that allowed the viewer to soak in locations and atmosphere. Like reading a book the slower pace lets the viewer use their own brain experience the story. The different approach to telling a story makes it memorable.
A slow burn which gives time to appreciate the cinematography.
Yeah it's beautifully shot!
@@WhytheBookWins have u onlyfans?
Agree ... I was blown away by the aesthetics and the wonderful slow pace of this masterpiece. Best mini series in years
It's slow all right, but I don't know about the burn. For those of us sold on the
Rene Clement/Alain Delon version, "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "Ripley" come
in second best. Love film noir, but monochrome "Ripley" doesn't work. Highsmith
said that Alain Ripley was her man.
I don't think the show was trying to say that Tom is Caravaggio reincarnated; I think it was trying to show that Tom sees himself perhaps as an artist, and identifies with Caravaggio as such and as a killer. The closing moments with Tom's deeds being juxtaposed with Caravaggio's work made me think that Tom's deceptions, which he is very good at, are his art, his opus, and just like Caravaggio, he plays with light and dark.
It is much slower paced than the film (obviously given it’s a series), but it is by far much closer/truer to the book than the film (1999).
Caravaggio is not a "random" painter!
Sorry you're right haha, I meant random as in he had nothing to do with the book!
I started watching this in the morning after I read an article about it in my local newspaper. Once I started I just couldn't stop. It was glorious. The cinematography is incredible. The slower pace was more like reading the book and gave so much more of an insight into Ripley's mind. Andrew Scott was a fabulous Ripley! The black and white format made everything more real rather than less. I finished it the same day and I'm already looking forward to watching it again. 5 STARS! I suggest Why The Book Wins watch it again after she's grown up.
glad you liked the show! thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I loved watching all the small details. Did not find it boring at all.
The interesting parts of the film have nothing to do with Patricia Highsmith. The Cate B is a fiction, as is the woman Dickie got pregnant , as is the murder at the end, as is the homosexuality thing. Andrew Scott says that Tom is “other”. If you want to know more of the reasons for the approach, which you may not, there are several very good interviews with the writer / director on RUclips. I did love the movie but love that this is true to the book apart from the Caravaggio bit. When we see more comments it will be interesting to see reactions. Thank you for your thoughts.
Yeah the 90's movie made a lot of changes from the book! This show seems to be getting mixed reviews as I've heard people say they love it, but then there are people like me who were disappointed. Thanks for sharing your thoughts as to why you enjoyed it! I should check out some of those interviews.
Yes we want to spend time with him in NY, we want to spend as much time as it did anywhere for the sake of what it wanted to tell us. I appreciated how different it was from the films because we dont want to see the same thing but also because it is a series we can take the time to flesh out the scenes more.
I think you did not appreciate who was being deceived. Tom was not a master murderer BUT was a master at planting ideas about who the characters are which affects what they think is going on. The viewer is also manipulated by adding some seemingly dead ends (like cat tracks in the blood, blood in the tub) that affect the viewers ideas about what is going on. We were left wondering how much the motel clerks and landlord were manipulated by Tom.
That's such a great point!
I LOVED the Matt Damon version and loved this one just as much. I did notice the pacing but enjoyed the different way they fleshed it out!
I much preferred this to the 90s film (which I did also enjoy).
I’m about halfway through Ripley.
The series adds a darker more mysterious tone, with the tension of Hitchcock, something that is consistent throughout. Vs. the film, this definitely takes the Hollywood bounce out of that production which - at times - steps over the line in terms of the relationship between Dickie and Tom as being far too energetic. The series has Dickie as much more happy-go-lucky and the dynamic between them is more reflective of intrigue on both parts as they get the measure of one another, rather than just automatically becoming best mates.
The cinematography is exquisite and reminds me of something like Raging Bull; not because it’s b&w, but the angles of camera work and the lighting, the subtle background humming in sound effects weaves in seamlessly to offer hustle and bustle activity and movement. Also Shazamed a number of tracks as it really showcased these amazing European crooners from the era.
Not disrespecting the marvellous film, which is a favourite also, but the series is a step up in maturity I feel.
Yeah I thought the show was amazing visually, I just didn't think the script was as good as the look of it. But you make a good point about Tom and Dickie in the show! And you're right, this does feel like a mature version of the story in some ways. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
@@WhytheBookWins It’s a great conversation piece…which has led me to hunt (and find) out “Purple Noon”.
The flash of red in a world of black and white is also a self-reference to Schindler’s List which was also written by Steven Zaillian.
Oh very true!
@@WhytheBookWins There's a much simpler explanation: If it were to remain in Black and White, there would be a lack of clarity that the paw prints were blood. It would just look like paw prints, and so the point would potentially be lost.
@@domcokeThat makes sense! I just wish its use had been more than a one time thing so that it wouldn't have come across as a pertinent detail. The bloodstain on the bathtub would've been another suitable place to add red.
@@LucaDolanRuiz The fact that nowhere else blood was represented in colour, indicates that it was less of a stylistic flourish, and more a storytelling device. That same, actually, is true in Schindler's List - it's not just a bit of aesthetic flair, but to link the girl walking through the crowd, with the body of the girl later. And so with the blood in the bath, we don't need to be told that that stain is blood, because we've seen him clearing up the blood, and seen the stain in the bath, and so it's clear in the audience's mind that that stain is Freddie's blood.
I think the series Ripley is already a fully formed con artist in contrast to Damon's Ripley which appears a lot less experienced and passion driven Ripley.
Very true! But again, if they are wanting a story of him later as a fully formed con artist, why not adapt one of the later books??
I don't think that Marge doubted Tom and was just tricking him at the end. I think at that point, she was just desperate to believe Tom's story, that Dickie loved her still but killed himself. The ring cinched it for her, giving her the proof to believe what she wanted.
She had no way of knowing that Tom had been masquerading as Dickie, and had believed the letters she got from him. So, when she sent the book to the detective, it was probably just a normal thank you. If she had known that Tom had presented himself as Dickie to the detective, do you really think she would have waited until the book was published, and then only thrown the detective a vague hint, hoping he'd notice the photo? Why help Tom? He can't hurt her when he's in Europe and she's back in the U.S.
At one point in the last 2 episodes. It seemed to me that Marge had actually begun kind of cashing in on the situation. Not sure if that's correct, but it seemed a little spiteful.
@@rebuildingnoseas I think she definitely suspected something, but once she found the ring, she really did believe Tom's story, which she wanted to believe
So much better than the 99 movie, which didn’t age well.
None of it was boring for me. I really liked the beginning as it explained the life of Ripley in New York. This explained his motivation of murder in the future. I'm sorry if you found it boring. But calling something boring is not a review.
Ripley the show was perfect 👌👍
I loved the slow burn and characterisations of the supporting cast. in particular the Italians. Best show of the year for me.
RIPLEY the series was the best of the three by far.
Thank you for your wonderful videos! As a fan of the 1999 movie (I still remember seeing it in the theater), I did quite enjoy this mini series. I thought the cinematography was very well done, and evoked Hitchcock & Highsmith very nicely. Very artistic & fitting. I also liked getting to spend more time with the character & letting the story unfold.
Thanks for commenting! Agreed the cinematography was beautifully done, and while I didn't love the pacing at times I can appreciate how they took their time with the story.
I watched "Plein Soleil" three or four times. Maybe five. The first time was in an art house cinema and was real 35 mm film stock.
The cinematography of "Ripley" is truly magnificent ( it was filmed with colour but they remove the colour in the editing) but some images in "Plein Soleil' are even better and that is because of the "voluptuous" colours captured by Henri Decaë, a revolutionary cinematographer who worked with Louis Malle, Jean Pierre Melville, René Clément , Claude Chabrol, Godard, Truffaut.
This is from a recorded conversation with Patricia HIghsmith in the British Library (available on RUclips)
The interviewer asks if "The Talented Mr. Ripley" was originally supposed to be a one off book. She says " yes". Then the interviewer asks why she changed her mind and wrote sequels. These are Patricia Highsmith's very words:
"Maybe, in a curious way, The French film affected me in a positive way because Alain Delon did such a good job … the right age ….One hundred percent correct"
I'm not a fan of black and white at ALL, but I was so into this show I didn't notice the lack of color until the cats bloody red paw print. I was shocked when I realized it.
I was way too young for this book when I first read it around age 10 in the 70s, but I was fascinated with the story even then.
I don't know if there is a book, but I'd love to hear your impression of the Netflix movie Saltburn. Maybe compare is as a derivative approach to T.T.M.R
I thought Saltburn was decent, but it was annoying that Emerald Fennell claimed she was not inspired by Ripley at all when clearly she took a lot from it! I think I gave 3/5, and overall prefer 99 Ripley by far. Though that dance at the end was iconic and they did a great job at showing how out of place Oliver was. That scene when they are singing happy birthday to him but then no one knows his name was great.
@@WhytheBookWinsI concur 💯%
I read the book decades ago and was disappointed with the changes in the American movie, but I loved it for other reasons, especially the actors, music, and setting. I love Andrew Scott so was thrilled he was Tom and he totally killed it.
The main difference between the show and the film was the film made you empathize with Matt Damon’s Tom, whereas I had none for Andrew Scott’s Tom EXCEPT after he killed Freddy, I found myself not wanting him to get caught. And in TTMR, I didn’t mind Tom killing Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Freddy because he played him so well. Ripley’s Freddy had a healthy amount of suspicion about Tom.
Overall, I loved both, and now I want to reread the book and watch Purple Noon.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Very true that the Damon Ripley was much more sympathetic.
Was looking for references to the future books, sides Reeves Minot, Ripley being really into the paintings makes sense only because in the future books he makes his money through art forgeries specifically Derwatt paintings. Derwatt, who Tom pretends to be after the real Derwatt is dead. I was hoping for an Easter egg about Belle Ombré (his estate he married into) or his future in France with the art forgeries, but didn’t notice anything else.
My knowledge of later books just comes from having watched other Ripley movies, because I only got halfway through the second book 😬
But yeah it would have been cool for them to include more people or references to later books. Even though it's a limited series I wonder if they are hoping to have a season two.
I really don't like the 1999 adaptation. Firstly, I think Matt Damon is too unattractive to play the character, and secondly I don't like that they gave the character some sort of moral conscience, the best thing about Ripley in the books in my opinion is that he is completely amoral.
Love your channel 😘😘
You make a good point about him having too much of a conscience in the Damon version! Thanks for sharing and glad you like the channel 🙂
Yeah, in the TV show, near the end, Marge is definitely trying to beat Tom at his own game. She knows!
Yes, perhaps that’s why she sent the Inspector the book. She knew he would see Dickie’s photo immediately.
Thank you! I thought it was just me who didn’t like this after watching what all the other RUclipsrs were saying.
Yeah we seem to be in the minority!
I think the length and pacing really come down to personal taste. I'm a huge fan of Jim Jarmusch movies which are famously still feeling and have a much slower pacing than today's norm. I think because I'm acclimated to this style of pacing, I absolutely loved it.
Yeah that's a good point. I watched a couple Jarmusch movies a number of years ago, I should check him out again! Thanks for commenting 🙂
Very pleasing show, I mean speaking of aesthetics.
Watching someone dealing with evidence with a comical twist to it, luv that.
What I didn't really like is how every person who met Ripley instantly was getting a sketchy vibe, like ok we get it.
Also the last episode felt rushed, because a lot happened, but still!
I agree with a lot of your observations. It feels odd that a man in his 40s is playing Tom, he did a good job. But none of the cast members of the series is as charismatic as the 90s cast.
I also realized, despite the 8h , the relationship are not well founded, they don't have chemistry.
I don't think the landlady was aware of Tom's actions, she was even sympathetic to him; and regarding Caravaggio's reincarnation that never came to my mind. In my opinion Tom's character was just inspired by the painter.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! And yeah, you are probably right at Tom just being inspired by the artist.
In reference to the colour part of Ripley, Zaillian did the same thing ( whether was his idea or not) in 'Schindler's List', the same idea was used here. It's just an observation.
The series is, amongst other things, a homage to 60's Cartier-Bresson style photography. It literally uses it, in addition to the shots of Italian art, to tell the story. This completely went unnoticed and un commented ( in your.. sorry, rather shallow analysis ) otherwise you would have understood the need for the slower pace. Each photograph, ( that could quite literally stand by itself in a gallery ) needs time to be looked at, appreciated and digested.
I found the Netflix adaptation much better, more nuanced, and deeper than the Hollywood style of the Matt Damon film... and it seems that almost every other commenter I've read does also..
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I know nothing about the photography style you mention but I loved the books and enjoyed the movie. However, this noir treatment just blew my mind. I wanted it to be slower so it could go on forever. More menacing and haunting than the original. And God know his sexuality. Loved pretty much everything except those fucking steps.
@@tonylove4800 Do you mean the staircase steps?
@@graficus5348 Yes.
@@tonylove4800 I loved the steps throughout the episodes. They remind me of M.C. Eschers optical illusions with staircases - and guess what: He lived in Atrani :) I'm pretty sure they are 'quotes'. Allegory speaking I see them as symbols of Ripley's hunger for social climbing
The details were amazing
I love all three versions and the book as well.
Thanks for the review. As you rightly mention the 1999 movie was exceptional! Shall be watching the TV show soon.
Let me know what you think of the show!
@@WhytheBookWins I finished the show. No patch on the excellent 1999 movie. Much too slow and filming the beautiful Italian locales in black and white was such a bummer. No color, no music, no emotion.
The cast in the movie was legendary. Also as you mention, Ripley from the TV show is much too old.
So for someone who has seen the movie, it is an average TV show. Say 6/10 when the movie ranked an almost perfect 10/10.
What u call “boring details” is ART. Comments like a column in a high school magazine.. pity.
Thanks for the honest review. I haven’t watched the series but I’ve watched the movie multiple times. It was a great movie with the best actors (to me) and Matt Damon as Tom was perfect!
Yeah some people really loved the show so take my review as you will. I do think it is beautifuly shot but unfortunately i think the script was very lacking. And yeah, the 90's movie had superb casting! Thanks for commenting!
@@WhytheBookWins Your opinion is valid but the writer (and director) won an Oscar for writing Schindler’s List (amongst his several highly regarded scripts) but thatvwas a long time ago.
I saw the Matt Damon/Jude Law flick when it first came out, and I don't know why it didn't stay with me, but I watched it today after being underwhelmed by the miniseries, and, wow, it is a really good film! The chemistry, as you point out, between Tom and Dickie is SO important to the story, and there was none in the miniseries. So, if nothing else, the miniseries made me revisit and appreciate the Talented Mr. Ripley.
Glad you revisited the movie! I definitely agree about the show being underwhelming.
I agree about the pacing, especially the last two episodes which somewhat dragged. And I haven't read the novel, but the scene where "light/shadows" were used to fool the inspector to me seemed part silly from a plot standpoint. (and part interesting symbolically I guess)
But as far as the performances, cinematography, and the tension go, especially in episodes 3 to 5, I loved those aspects of it. Very much reminded me of the scary atmosphere Roman Polanski movies have (like "Knife in the Water").
One major complaint that I have, is that as you rightly mentioned, the guy who plays Dickie here, is nowhere as charismatic (or interesting as a character) as Jude Law or Maurice Ronet's "Greenleaf" in the original film adaptations. So it wouldn't make sense why Ripley was so eager to replace him personally. I get his financial angle as you said, but to "be like him" ?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Yeah, some aspects were really well done but some of the casting I just didn't get. The casting of Dickie just made no sense!
@@WhytheBookWins Exactly. Couldn't agree more. Thank you
I actually liked this adaptation. I still think Purple Noon is the best version but I agree there are other books that I wish they would explore. Ripley underground is my favorite of the books. I think the cinematography in this show is beautiful. Every shot could be its own framed photograph.
I can’t forgive 1999 version for making Ripley overly emotional over Dickie. Making him gay isn’t the issue, the issue is that Ripley in the books is a sociopath he’s neither gay nor straight. He marries for money, he kills Dickie for money. The books never outright say he is gay or straight. The closest it comes to addressing it is in The Boy Who Followed Ripley. Purple Noon and this version got it right. To each their own, but I think this version and even Purple Noon despite its ending, are a lot closer to Ripley from the novels. Another thing that this version got right is exploring Tom’s disguises and the police interview. That was one of my favorite scenes from the book, and he does similar things in later books.
You make a really good point! I had thought the book implied he was gay but I agree, I love how Purple Noon portrays him. The Damon movie definitely makes him more emotional and less methodical and cold. I still love that movie though.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@WhytheBookWins In subsequent Ripley novels, Tom marries a woman. Although there are ongoing hints of bisexuality, Highsmith said, 'I don't think Ripley is gay'
All servants are aware of Tom. That's where the class difference goes in this adaptation
My friend thought Ripley was going to about Ripley from Alien
😆 I would watch that!
I don't do quick.
I enjoyed the slow pacing and the style but the ending fell apart, the last episode. I loved the boat scene despite swimming fully clothed and his head impervious to the concrete anchor. This was like Fellini Hitchcock.
Hah! That moment really took me out of a completely immersive viewing experience. How was he not killed (or at least concussed) by a violent blow to the head with a block of concrete?! And yet he seemed to have no ill effects from it. Very odd choice.
@@lesliesgarden6798 plot armor to the rescue
I really enjoyed it. The only thing that I didn't enjoy were the choice of actors for Marge and Freddy..especially Freddy. I didn't find him to be believable at all. He seemed out of place and very unlike Freddy from Purple and TTMR.
Dakota Fanning...I wouldn't have chosen her for Marge, she's a really great actress but her portrayal of Marge was frumpy...perhaps it's the way the director wanted Marge to appear, but I was a bit disappointed, although later on in the last couple of episodes Marge's life seemed more inline with a woman who had experienced the situation and the loss that she had. And I felt that it made both Dakota and Marge a more acceptable.
But of course, I also didn't care much for Tom in the first episode either, however throughout the episodes I liked him more and more.
The whole thing was held together by the cinematography. The grainy black and white, Film Noir style made it feel like a credible period-piece.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree the cinematography was stunning.
It's good to see a reviewer who is not part of the hype "Ripley" is the best series I've seen in my life, it's the best thing since sliced bread, it's the best thing in the entire universe!
But the reviewer read the book long ago by the look of it because she is mistaken about parts of the book. Tom wasn't an all time crook in New York in the book, Dickie and Marge were a couple. And the series is definitely not faithful to the book as many posters are saying. Never mind . This is the only intelligent, critical review I've seen about "Ripley". Everything else is just cheerleading.
"Ripley" is so different to the book and the two films that I really think it should have a different title. Something like "The Obvious Psychopath". The very core of the original story is so corrupted by the series that I think 'Ripley' is not an adaptation. It's a metamorphosis.
Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley in the book and two films looks harmless and is a funny, charming, compliant young man. He is also a murderer.
A poster described Tom Ripley in the book as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Excellent!
But Scot is wolf only, unlike the book, Alan Delon and Matt Damon.
The series has many parts from the book that are not in the films but they are secondary . What really matters is that the personages of the series , physically and behaviorally, are very different to the personages in the book and two films.
This is the description of Freddie Miles in the book: "...a young man with red hair and a loud sports shirt...He was also overweight". Any similarity with the skinny actress wearing stylish 21st century dark clothes in the Netflix series?
More from the book: “He could feel the belligerence growing in Freddie Miles as surely as if his huge body were generating a heat that he could feel across the room. Freddie was the kind of ox who might beat up somebody he thought was a pansy"
Can anyone imagine Sting’s daughter as an “ox’ with a “huge body” and inclined to beat up a “pansy”? Ah, the irony!
Another striking difference is the sensuality present in the book and even more in the two films but absent in the antiseptic Netflix series where Dickie and Marge act like brother and sister.
There are many more examples of crucial differences between the book and the Netflix series. They indicate Netflix's usual political agenda and a Tom Ripley who was fabricated to please a modern audience numbed by Scandinavian noir series and the likes. Tom in the book (and films) is not the solitary, ruthless and humourless crook played by Andrew Scott.
Scott's is a corrupted , dumbed down Tom Ripley .
There is no detective in New York in the book unlike the series
Tom is not a solitary , friendless man in the book unlike the series
Tom is 25 in the book but he is played by a 47 year old actor who looks his age in the series
Tom never tried to cash the cheques unlike the series
Tom wasn't living alone in New York in the book unlike the series
Tom wasn't an all time crook and worked for the IRS (!!!) just before meeting with Dickie's father in the book unlike the series
Freddie Miles is a big man with bad taste in clothes unlike the series
Dickie wasn't any near as rich in the book as he was in the series
Dickie had no Picasso worth a fortune in the book unlike the series
There are no parallels with Caravaggio in the book unlike the series
Tom flew to Paris and spent about a week in France after murdering Dickie unlike the series
The book has a passage about Van Gogh when Tom is in France but there is nothing about Caravaggio unlike the series
A photo of Dickie Greenleaf's face is printed on Italian magazines unlike the series
Photos of Tom Ripley's face are printed on Italian newspapers unlike the series
The American detective in Italy is a short white guy of Irish descent who can read Italian, unlike the series.
The personage played by Malkovich doesn't exist in the book
Tom inherited Dickie's money in the book unlike the series
I have just finished reading the book and am rather disappointed because of the book's colossal holes. In spite of that but also because of that, I would say the book is a raw diamond and the films are polished diamonds.
"Ripley", on the other hand, is dull faded plastic. Despite the exquisite cinematography.
In the book, Dickie and Marge are not overtly dating, but Tom does she them kissing through Marge’s window.
Idk...I really liked the series. Maybe it's a personal preference thing, but the movie seems a little too campy. And I think the series did a good job in depicting Ripley as this psychopath. I also liked the artistic choises they took in the series. Maybe the fact that you already know the story very well took you out of the series. And you liking the movie has got a lot to do with nostalgia.
Yeah the show portrays his psychopathic side much better! The show has been getting a lot of good reviews and I can see why some people really like it. You are right about me knowing what will happen makes a difference.
"If you have 8 hours time to waste, go watch it?" Are you serious? This is not Avengers, c'mon. Ripley is a masterpiece on every possible level. The cinematography is pure art, it resembles the legendary, European "new vawe" movies from the 60s like Fellini's La Dolce Vita. Finally, enough time for the viewer to enjoy the real atmosphere of Italy, the sounds, the stairs, the old-school hotel receptions, even the breeze coming from the ocean. The audience needs to "work" for this experience a bit, not everything is served on a superficial, silver-like plate like in most Hollywood movies. And Scott is top-notch. I like the Damon-Law version, but it's not even comparable with this adaptation. Ripley is a sociopath, and Minghella turned him into a desparate, love- and identity-seeking poor lad, which cannot be further from Highsmith's intentions. Scott DID show us how a real sociopath operates. Whatever.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
boring
I think I enjoyed this slightly more than you, but had hopes for something a bit more compelling. I agree that all the main characters fell flat. The supporting cast and the cinematography carried the weight. The casting choice of Freddy was very distracting and took me out of the show. These characters are supposed to be in there mid to late 20s, and I agree that using actors in their mid to late 40s was a bad choice. I did feel the casting of Marge was spot on. She is supposed to be boring plain, and Dakota Fanning nailed it. If I were to recast, Kodi Smit-McPhee as Tom, Tom Holland as Dickie, and Paul Dano as Freddie.
Yeah I agree the cinematography did most of the work here! Your casting choices are really interesting! I would have to think who my dream cast would be 🤔
I found the plot armour a bit too much in the storyline. Made it hard to continue suspending disbelief at times.
Masterpiece
If you're looking for a comparative review between the book and the series - this ain't it. This is more of a comparison between the series and the movie and lightly touches on what she may remember of the book. Also, the reviewer admittedly doesn't have time to dedicate to the series as she has been moving.
I’m so glad I listened to your review of Ripley. My husband & I were “trying” to watch it and after getting into 2nd episode we agreed to stop watching it. I found it SO slow, maybe boring? I was not overly impressed by any of the characters. Dickie was so hard to watch. I just had no interest in his character. He kind of had a flat affect. Dakota Fanning, I generally like wasn’t really much of a character. The title character is one I have liked as an obviously evil character but he did nothing in this to hold my interest. I have seen The Talented Mr Ripley. Those were so many characters that were so captivating. I don’t think I’m going to go back to watch it or give it another try. I don’t know anything about the books but I think it would’ve been a good idea to use one of the later books if they were insistent on using this actor. I am really disappointed. I was really looking forward to this series.
Yeah I feel the same! I like Dakota Fanning too but she definitely felt one note here. Totally agree about feeling so disappointed 😔
The series is beautifully shot, and Mr. Scott is an amazing actor...but; after 2 episodes...I was looking for an oar to hit Dickie and Marge myself.
Um ok. The actor who plays Greenleaf is in his forties and Marge in her 30 thirties. I didn't notice anything about their ages as weird. To me the only weird thing was realizing Freddie was played by a woman.
Freddie was actually played by a non-binary person (whom I understand previously identified as female). In any event, they seemed like a woman in men's clothes to me, and I found that distracting and odd, especially given the period. I mean, were there many non-binary people circulating in upper-class society in 1950's Italy? I'm all for inclusive casting decisions, but there comes a point at which they can detract from credibility and world-building.
Boring details? I think you need to watch this again in a different mindset.
And so yah... another boring review, when the show is the best in this year.... it just threw the weird vibe when this reviewer is so old that this is so bad
thanks for commenting! it helps the algorithm 😀
I agree, this adaptation was just awful. Andrew Scott portrays Tom as a middle aged creep, who is so unlikable and charmless you wouldn’t trust him to take care of your pet rock. It’s a miracle why nobody suspects him since the audience can see he’s guilty a mile away. Why would a tycoon send him to convince his wayward son to go back? The whole set up is baffling.
The show is also slow as molasses, and it gets boring real fast- most of the scenes are pure padding. And the black and white photography is silly since all the charms of Italy are gone; its nothing more than a monochrome hell; why would Tom kill to stay there? They should have shown NYC in B&W first, then shift it to color the moment Tom went to Italy. What’s the point of all the paintings if you don’t show the colors?
And finally, Freddie is trans? No way that would work in a period piece like this-it’s just too ridiculous.
Yeah I agree with a lot of your thoughts!
And even though the actor is trans, I think the character of Freddie is still cis. So just a trans actor playing a cis person.
@@WhytheBookWins Also, there were so many characters whose arcs just went nowhere. From the maid to Freddie's BF, they just came and went even though they had suspicions about what Tom was doing and were never heard from again. Such lazy writing.
Honestly someone at any age did what he did at the beach would be creepy to me. I don't get this aegism against Scott as the actor who plays Greenleaf is in his forties and Dakota is in her thirties. I mean pretty much if you're in your twenties you're old.
If you had a 25 year old car would you call that new?
@@WhytheBookWins I find it strange on how people are hung up with Andrew Scott's age yet think that woman playing a guy is normal. I mean everyone gets old except the deceased so unless you guys found the fountain of youth I don't get it. Everyone is old to someone else. I had to look up what is a cis person..😐🙄..so you mean like the rest of the world?
@@WhytheBookWins I'm puzzled by the decision to cast someone who looks and sounds like a woman (which Sumner does, regardless of how they currently identify) in the role of a man. What purpose does that serve? It causes the audience to devote attention to the mismatch and takes the viewer out of the imaginary world of the show. Isn't that precisely not what a director wants? Was there no better available actor to play the role as it was written for the series?
I'm five episodes into the series, and despite watching most of it at 1.5x speed (something I'd never done before), the glacial pacing is defeating my patience. I've read the book and seen the 1999 film (but not Purple Noon), and so far I think this series is a disappointing misfire. I doubt I'll finish it. The performances are so oddly subdued - as if the three leads were heavily sedated prior to each shooting day. I like black and white cinematography, but for this material it's a terrible choice. As are the casting choices - the original characters are kids in their mid-twenties but the two lead men cast here are in their forties. This change does nothing good for the material.
I agree! Thanks for commenting :)
It's perfectly paced for me.