44 KEY Differences Between RIPLEY (2024) and THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- In this video we look at some of the major differences and compare Steve Zaillian’s RIPLEY (2024) starring Andrew Scott with Anthony Minghella’s THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY starring Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and Cate Blanchett.
Check out my other Comparison Videos here: • Crazy Cool Comparisons
FOLLOW ME:
Twitter: / thinkstoryyt
Instagram: / thinkstoryyt
TikTok: / thinkstory
#Ripley #Netflix
🍸🍸What was better? RIPLEY (2024) or THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999)?🍸🍸
Check out my other Comparison Videos here: ruclips.net/p/PLY9KJ1cFVs7gMQ-gKIuedkPVSpTfGQB26
Havent seen the new one jet, but 1999 looks more lively
99 was flashy, trashy Hollywood.
24 was much more European-subtle, brooding- a completely downplayed film noir…
before 1999 "The Talented Mr Ripley" there was also the French film "Plein Soleil" (Purple Noon), the three versions are actually an adaptation of a same book, but I think the tone of the first movie is closer to the 2024 "Ripley" series.
2024 …beautifully filmed in black and white …everything is more real …Italian buildings in decay …the pace is slower but that brings a real tension to the drama …feels less fake than the original….I watched it in one sitting was so into it …great film and so different which is amazing
It would have been interesting if you also compared PURPLE NOON, though that version is more suggested by the novel and not as closely followed.
In my view both versions are good and worth watching several times… but I love the pace, the b&w imagery, the photography and the extraordinary portrayal by Scott of Ripley. Scott is amazingly restrained… you can see the machinations of his thinking in the silence and suspense, underplayed with vast stretches of disturbing silence. I particularly liked the extraordinary detail of how he manages the death of Freddie and the suspense of the clear up… particularly the cat! Everyone in Ripley looks at Tom with suspicion, including the cat.
The decision to shoot in B & W for the 2024 is brilliant. Somehow it made everything became more dramatic on screen!
I thought why would he kill him with the apt door open. Freddie screams before fighting for his life one last time and I'm thinking there's no way the nosy land lady didn't hear that. The apartment elevator breaking (right after it gets fixed) while carrying a dead body late at night has been in so many movies eg unfaithful w Richard Gere.
Great mini review & I completely agree. In the film, Tom is much more reluctant when he kills both Dickie & Freddie, and he even weeps as he prepares to kill his lover….but Scott’s performance, like the cigarettes smoked in the series, is a slow burn, tinged with nuanced brilliance. I absolutely LOVED the limited series, and I hope Andrew Scott is nominated for many acting awards.
@@dinyahomelol “somehow” you can’t even explain why, it’s just you being pretentious. It isn’t even done right, it’s way too saturated and the lighting is off.
@@MeetLeAnneexcept… Scott didn’t portray Ripley. That’s not Ripleys character
Andrew Scott is amazing as Ripley.
His character reminds me of Anthony Perkins portrayal of Norman bates in Psycho.
Yes! Tom is a bit like Norman in all those quiet moments. Good analogy!
Yessss! I said the same thing!!
Totally!
I think he really nailed the duality between his innocent, childlike fascination with beauty and the world and his cold-blooded, murderous nature.
It's ironic to see many posters comparing Andrew Scott with Anthony Perkins thinking they are praising Scott's nonsensical, mediocre performance of Tom Ripley when they are doing the opposite without being aware of it.
That Scott's Tom reminds people of "Psycho" is a clear indication of how different he is from the Tom in the book and two films.I even think it's some sort of plagiarism to call this series "Ripley".
To watch Alain Delon in the really original film (Not Matt Damon's as so many think. It's depressing) is the best way to see how distant Tom Ripley is from "Psycho's main personage and Scott's interpretation.
Patricia Highsmith was asked in a recorded conversation at the British Library why she had decided to write sequels to "The Talented Mr. Ripley" which was originally supposed to be a one off book. She replied ""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"
You did a fantastic job of comparing and contrasting the two works. "The Talented Mr. Ripley" is probably my favorite film of all time. Such perfection in every way. I've watched it more times than I'd care to admit. I actually binge watched the entire "Ripley" and at first, I kind of felt it was moving at a glacial pace. But soon it became pretty obvious that as a modern Film Noir, it's a magnificent work of art. Visually stunning. there's an interesting piece in the current Vanity Fair where the director and the cinematographer are discussing the various shots/setups. So I'd have to say that having sat through the entire 8 hours, I did finally come around and to greatly admire all aspects of this new Ripley.
The black and white cinematography was visually stunning
The photography was stunning. The camera studies each shot,giving the viewer a moment to absorb the scene..a gallery within a gallery. I will revisit this on mute. Lots of grist for thought...a beautiful and mean piece. Scott's character gave me the creeps. Lots like that walking around.
@@cassandra2872 Interesting. I am going to do the same and watch the film on mute. But I will listen to classical music from the time of Caravaggio because of the idea of light even if there is no Caravaggio in the book.
And that Scott's Tom give you and so many other posters the creeps is a clear indication of how distant he is from the Tom Ripley in the book and the two films. It's a nonsensical interpretation.
Why?
@@cassandra2872lol Ripley is supposed to assuming and a master of blending in. Also you’re salivating over the mediocre black and white is cringe.
@@umbertoaguiarthank you lmao exactly they think they’re praising Scott by describing how inaccurately he portrayed Tom’s personality. It’s insane.
I often rewatch 99 for that retro summer vibe of them hanging out as friends and listening to jazz
I like jazz but My Funny Valentine was on repeat too many times!
@@lunacascade1125 - it's not such a thing as too many for a Funny Valentine😜
The 1999 version is easy to love as an iconic fashion travelogue. The series is very different, and is a masterpiece of cinematography. Director Steven Zaillian and cinematographer Robert Elswit have reinvented Noir cinema to create a work of art. The series is much more measured, even aloof, coldblooded. Atrani in the series is pre-tourist and is empty, shabby, while the 1999 film was the epitome of postwar glamour. Both are outstanding in their own way.
totally agree with you!!
Minghella's film has been my all time favorite. And I am surprised how much more I like this new rendition. I love this new take on the novel. Much more closer to real life. Dickie Greenleaf in this rendition is what I have known such people to be like - Plain and unimpressive.
@@sb5224 Yes, very true.
Very well said
Well said!
"Tommy, how is the peeping?"-Freddie (Philip Seymour Hoffman) teasing Tom (Matt Damon).
Did this place come furnished? Horrible isn't it! Doesn't look like Dickie at all. In fact the only thing that looks like Dickie is you. Have you done something with your hair???
irreplaceable Philip Seymour Hoffman
While I very much enjoyed Seymour Hoffman performance, I really appreciated the cold, implacable, elegant arrogance of Eliot Sumner. So well played
@elenazaslavsky5268 When Freddie confrontated Ripley at the appartment, in the 1999 version, that was the scene!
That alone almost makes the movie better than the series. I guess some think the movie has some cheap flash about it and not enough euro-cinema, but I can't imagine anyone rewatching the series even once if they liked the movie. A great movie for a pretty lady.
Matt Damon's Tom Ripley was much more likeable and appealing. He has boyish good looks. And Jude Law, oh my god, he's so unfeasibly handsome. Who wouldn't want to be him. There's chemistry between Matt, Jude, Gwyneth and Philip. Something that's lacking in the 2024.
Matt pulled us in with his charm. He showed remorse and regrets. Whereas the 2024, Tom was cold and manipulative, and a psychopath from the get go.
Ultimately, the 1999 version has a better, more shocking ending. He has to pay a dear price and a personal one, for his crimes.
Wait…Tom Ripley was the OPPOSITE of being “likable and appealing!” He was a full on sociopath in the book! Damon was horribly miscast. Andrew Scott is a stage actor who with subtlety showed the depth of his psychopathy! You obviously didn’t understand the plot or characters.
@@nuschlerclark895 yawn... all I hear was "blah blah blah". Go talk to someone who cares, honey.
@@nuschlerclark895absolutely not. Matt Damon was perfectly cast.
To anyone else reading my first comment - not the condescending replier:
I'm judging the movie and the show on their own accords. Without considering how faithful the portrayal to the book. When I say Matt Damon's Ripley is more appealing and likeable, it was compared to Andrew Scott's. It doesn't mean that I wanted to be friends with Tom Ripley and have tea with him. I recognize that Andrew Scott may be a good actor, but in my opinion, this is not his best. But not just Scott, every lead actor here is stiff: Flynn, Fanning, and Sumner, included. Matt Damon as an actor has range. He did extraordinarily well on dramatic role, or heroic, or even comedy.
At 8 hours, this series only covers the same plot as the 2 hour movie. The movie as better pacing. The disguising scene with just a bad wig and bad lighting is stupid, frankly. But hey, just my opinion.
But that's not Ripley at all. Ripley is colder, the 2024 was more realistic, I disagree about the pace, we get to know the character much more intimately, the crimes have much more weight. And 1999 has the Hollywood rhythm, people are more used to it but that doesn't mean it's the only possible rhythm to tell the story. The author had a reason to write Ripley without Damon's goofy charm, Andrew perfomace fits the theme of the story better than Damon.
I really had fun watching the Netflix version because I love the novel and the 1999 film so much, but I probably won't go back to the Netflix series and I'll annually go back to the 1999 film--it's so sumptuous, glamorous and entertaining--like a 1950s Hitchcock film.
Hoffman's Freddy is so menacing and fun for the few moments he's on screen. I didn't get the new one at all.
Neither did I. Hoffman was magnificent. Especially his facial gestures. Apparently the current Freddy is Nepo Baby Son of Sting.
Is the actor a man or a woman , I can’t tell
@@nycgweedGoogle it
Apparently the actor is indeed a woman. In real life the daughter of Sting.
@@nycgweedDEI casting.
before 1999 "The Talented Mr Ripley" there was also the French film "Plein Soleil" (Purple Noon), the three versions are actually an adaptation of a same book, but I think the tone of the first movie is closer to the 2024 Ripley series.
The difference is Alain Delon was a beauty of an angel. You would never believe his did such horrible things. Andrew's Tom is old and creepy, he lacks the charm to play the character.
@@juliajulie8500 you're right, it was less obvious from the start
Andrew Scott portrayal is closer to Delon's, yes. But probably even closer to John Malkovitch in Ripley's Game as a cold, calculating (though not entirely unfeeling) sociopath rather than a spurned lover who became a criminal through chance and circumstances. Hence the cameo.
@@jugurthasyphax6341 Andrew Scott's portrayal is very different to Alain Delon's portrayal .
Scott looks miserable and too serious all the time. He looks like one of those serial killers in Scandinavian series. Alain Delon looks happy and is always smiling and being funny. He is closer to the book. Scott's interpretation is nonsensical and the series is so different to the book and the two films that I even think it's some sort of plagiarism to call the series "Ripley".
I hear ripley I think alien
Lol I think the same thing too
I love Highsmith's Ripley novels, and I like this series the best of all three filmed versions I've seen... 1960's Plein Soleil more or less blamed Ripley's murderous tendencies on the cruelty of the rich, and had a "crime doesn't pay" ending. The 1999 version was excellent, but portrayed Ripley as a bit of a gormless idiot who stumbles into a world to which he desperately wants to belong, and ultimately becomes a victim of his own lies and his puppy-like eagerness to please everyone. Ripley as portrayed in this series is much closer to how I read him in the novels - a dispassionate, obsessive and ruthless imposter and forger who until the story begins has used his special skills merely to survive in the harsh environment of a society in which he has no place, and now finds himself presented with an opportunity to achieve riches beyond his wildest dreams. Riches meaning the amount of money that he can steal, but more so the aesthetic gratification that the money can unlock for him - all that great art and music that he surrounds himself with at last allowing him to feel like a worthwhile human being. If a few people have to die on the way, no problem - the man has zero empathy for others and never engages in guiilt. I would wager that smacking someone in the head with an ashtray doesn't even raise his blood pressure. Classical psychopath, very subtly played by Scott. And yes, I admire his single-mindedness and ability to drown out the annoying sounds of conscience 🙂
Excellent comment and analysis.
"Ripley as portrayed in this series is much closer to how I read him in the novels ". Which edition did you read?
I am asking this because "The Talented Mr. Ripley" I am reading from Everyman's Library is very different from the book you read. It's a curious phenomenon as I thought all editions would have the same words but yours obviously doesn't.
You didn't like "Plein Soleil"? Well, Patricia Highsmith did. This is from a recorded conversation at the British Library. When asked why she decided to write a sequel to "The Talented Mr. Ripley" which had been originally written as a one off story she replied : " 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"
You say "Ripley as portrayed in this series is much closer to how I read him in the novels - a dispassionate, obsessive and ruthless imposter and forger" Again, who is the publisher of your book? Because in the book I have here this is the "dispassionate, ruthless imposter... who has zero empathy for others and never engages in guilt."
These are from "my edition" of the book:
"Tom wanted to leave. But he hated to leave the man sitting alone with his fresh drink".
" ...He wasn't stealing money from anybody.Before he went to Europe, he thought, he'd destroy the cheques..."
"...Yet he had a feeling of guilt. When he had said to Ms. Greenleaf just now . I will do everything I can...Well, he meant it. He wasn't trying to fool anybody..."
You also say "I would wager that smacking someone in the head with an ashtray doesn't even raise his blood pressure."
'Freddie knocked at the door...He tried to think just for two seconds more... He couldn't think..."
Then after the murder which would not even raise his blood pressure according to you:
"Tom let his eyes rest absently on Freddie's limp, messy face for a moment, and his stomach contracted sickeningly and he quickly looked away...His head had begun ringing as if he were going to faint".
You like this mediocre Netflix series. Good for you. But please don't use the book to justify your weak arguments, a view of Patricia Highsmith which seems to be mixed up with watching too many Scandinavian noir series.
P.S. Please don't forget to let me know which edition of the novel you read. I am curious about this alternative version of Patricia Highsmith's story that you read.
You seem so angry, Umberto? My review was just a personal opinion. I wasn't trying to win a Pulitzer and never tried for any "strength of argument," much less claim to truth. So sorry that my uneducated opinion is different from yours, and that I read the wrong edition (no idea which one), and that liking such a "mediocre" series has offended your delicate sensibilities to such a degree. By the way, I am not a fan of Scandinavian noir. Way too depressing for my taste 🙂
@@bowint400 I am not angry. I am depressed. The adoration for a nonsensical, essentially dishonest and mediocre interpretation of a personage clearly defined in a book is one of the many indications of a slowly vanishing world of good cinema and literature and a more and more dumbed down world. It has a direct effect on my life. I am in a few days of idleness for private reasons so I read many reviews and comments about "Ripley". Far too many for my own good. I reacted to them but quite frankly I would just delete everything if I had the option to see all my comments in a single place as it is in the WSJ for example. What difference do comments on RUclips make?
Your comment is just not truthful. You can't change a book the way you did and call it your opinion. I only replied to it because of your reference to Patricia Highsmith's books .
I was being sarcastic about the edition but you didn't get it.
To say that Andrew Scott's interpretation of Ripley is closer to the book is so far away from the factual truth that I even wondered if you did read the book.
It is not just my opinion when I say that Andrew Scott's Tom is very different from the Tom in the book. We can begin with the big age difference. Tom is 25 in the book. Alain Delon was 25 at the time of his film. Matt Damon was 29. Scott at 47 could be their father. And please don't tell me that Scott's is an aged, more mature Tom. He is supposed to be 25 in the series.
Dickie's mother asks Tom: "Did you go to college here (NY) ?" He lies and says Princeton. Her reply : Your parents must be very proud of you!"
Now who would say that to an "aged", "mature" Tom in his forties? She said that to a personage who was supposed to be 25 as he is in the book! It's pretty obvious. "your parents must be very proud of you! "
I posted excerpts from the book in my first reply to you which clearly show how distant Andrew Scott's Tom is from the Tom in the book. Beginning with the age. But the age is the least of it. A poster, LondonPride25 if I remember right, described Tom Ripley very well. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Excellent description.
Andrew Scott is just the wolf and a bad one at that because of his constant miserable looking.
Moreover, the very author of the book considered Alain Delon to be an excellent Tom Ripley. Actually, the French film was the reason why Patricia Highsmith decided to write sequels.
Your Tom Ripley who is "obsessive dispassionate, ruthless imposter and forger.... survive in the harsh environment of a society in which he has no place" doesn't exist apart from the "obsessive". He is an imposter and forger all right but not a ruthless one. And he is definitely not dispassionate. Quite the opposite.
I even double checked in the dictionary to make sure I wasn't being unfair:
"dispassionate not affected by personal or emotional involvement' Not affected? He is jealous of Marge as so many passages of the book show. And this is him in New York before his travel "..Suddenly he leaned forward and planted a firm, brotherly kiss on the ivory cheek. I'll miss you, Cleo..."
Actually, the very reason for murdering Dickie was Tom's personal, emotional involvement with him. This is from the book : "You were supposed to see the soul through the eyes, to see love through the eyes...and in Dickie's eyes Tom saw nothing more now than...Tom felt a painful wretch in his breast, and he covered his face with his hands. It was as if Dickie had been suddenly snatched away from him. They were not friends"
Tom thought he and Dickie were going to be living together as many passages of the book show:
"By the time his money ran out, Tom thought, Dickie would probably be so fond of him and so used to him that he would take it for granted they would go on living together.He and Dickie could easily live on Dickie's five hundred a month income"
It was only when he realised that Dickie was going to get rid of him that he decided to kill Ritchie. The transition for affection to hate is clearly described in the book when they are on the train to San Remo where Tom will kill Ritchie.
As for not having a place in the society: Tom Ripley did have jobs and actually worked for the Internal Revenue office, for example, just weeks before the start of the story. And he wasn't any near as solitary as the wolf only Andrew Scott. He did have friends in NY. He wouldn't stay long in a job and considered that a problem. These are his thoughts in the ship to Europe:
"He was versatile and the world was wide! He swore to himself he would stick to a job once he got it."
A friendly suggestion: Read the book again.📖🙂🙃
@@umbertoaguiar hello umberto, i like your disections on the series. can i ask for a book recommendation that is similar to the Ripley series? i would love to hear your take on them. thank you in advance😁
Apples and oranges. I love both but the 2024 is darker.
I don't know how you can get darker than him strangling his lover at the end of the 99 one
@@MeatCatCheesyBlaster Have you seen the new one? Andrew Scott plays it darker and creepier regardless of the ending.
@@Owenwithee nah.. the '99 one was much darker
@@akshay5976 Yea... sorry, I simply dissagree.
Matt Damon was scary in that still.
Not recognizing him under the disguise is the most ridiculous thing in an otherwise brilliant series. I guess the idea is that time has passed so he wouldn't recognize him; however, not only was that terribly communicated, but also, their prior interactions make it unimaginable that he wouldn't recognize him. He should have either used a better disguise, created a scenario where he wouldn't be able to see his face, or just used a stand-in.
absolutely. that inspector is fastidious so him not inquiring about his money, being fooled by the disguise, not noticing the similar voice AND never asking for a photo of Greenleaf all irked me. But hey, I’m willing to surrender disbelief cuz it was an incredible series
@@laurabrown8161 Me too 😂
I couldn't agree more😂
And he made no effort to change personality characteristics!
Yes and the fact that the inspector was looking for dickie, who was on the run. Are we expected to believe that no pics of dickie/tom would not be circulating all around the world, pretty dumb, good show all the same.
The first filming of Highsmith's novel was a 1960 French film called ' Purple Noon," directed by Rene Clement. It starred Alain Delon, the most handsome man who ever lived. It's still the best version and can be found on Criterion.
Same story but very different run time & approach… the movie is one of my favorites but it does have a more traditional approach to how the story is told and executed. The series did caught me by surprise as I am someone who would watch anything that has this character I wasn’t expecting much from Netflix really, but wow did this series become one of my favorites of 2024… I might even say it’s one of the best made, best looking, best executed movie, series, media out right now. It is very patient, very calculating, loves details, it likes teasing and then diverting, it’s very deceiving yet brutally honest, very subtle yet absolutely grandiose in its framing and love for its characters, theme and location. Simple yet profound in its acting and execution. I love how it brings the classics back to modern streaming, modern day Hitchcock film… I can watch this all day and see art in every frame. This series really puts us in Ripleys world and the more we see his actions the more we are intrigued and can’t see how we have now become his accomplice, his disciples… this is one of the most beautifully filmed, framed and edited shots I’ve seen in quite a while and I hope one day we can see this in cinema❤ a love letter to the book, to classic film making, to the old masters of film, art and subtle character study… can’t recommend it enough and will go down as one of my all time favorites along with the film but I honestly think this as not just a companion piece but will be a masterpiece and a classic in its own right moving forward.
I agree and I enjoyed reading your comment!
@@jstokes ❤️ the series really felt like a love letter to old noir and European films. Never thought I’ve seen something like this from netflix i pray that they give us a second season, but even if they don’t this has cemented its place
@@flaminguo I also saw art in every frame in the series, as you so eloquently described. The series is essential viewing for film students.
@@jstokes we really are blessed to get 8 hours of this type of masterclass work of art ❤️
For me the newer version is much more well told, both story-wise and pictorially. There is so much more detail which is closer to the book itself. The speed at which it evolves raises the tension and keeps the viewer on edge. The latest Ripley is darker with each shot being a masterpiece of composition. The choice of lighting and black&white was perfect, had it been in colour it would have been overwhelming. The introduction of the Italian cast added that authentic touch. However, all the casting was just perfect.
all the casts are perfect except Freddie
Your comment sounds like the studio marketing department wrote it.
@@terri6854 it sound like it but it’s hearth felt as it blew me away.
I think the original film with entire cast: Hoffman, Jude Law, Paltrow, Etc. was a masterpiece. Netflix version isn’t even comparable on any level IMO.
I couldn't agree less. It dragged on and on, there was all build up, no payoff. Plus it didn't make sense! The whole business of the private detective tracking down Ripley, yet Ripley was supposed to be a Princeton grad. Ripley was too obviously a con artist. Just messy plotting.
The winner: Plein Soleil (1960)
No.
Alain Delon was great, but the movie has a disappointing ending.
The new version is better in my opinion. The cinematography was excellent!
I love Andrew Scott. Different stories are great. 👍
Talented was a far more layered, stimulating version. Tom was portrayed as an artist (pianist) with enormous potential ignored and dismissed by his social "betters" who sees the offer to bring Dickie home as a ticket out of the working class. He murders Dickie after being ruthlessly provoked, is remorseful, but knows he must assume Dickie's identity to survive. He is a prisoner of circumstances. In the new version, he is a petty crook and sociopath scoring the con of a lifetime and running with it. Andrew Scott is brilliant, but his Tom is too one-dimensional for his sublime talents to shine. Team Damon.
Minghella's film has been my all time favorite. And I am surprised how much more I like this new rendition. I love this new take on the novel. Much more closer to real life. Dickie Greenleaf and Marj in this rendition are exactly what I have known such people to be like - Plain and unimpressive.
That's a wierd take. How does the make andrew's ripley one dimensional. It's a totally different version of ripley. I believe people expected it to be like the movie but long. Andrew's ripley had actual problems whereas damon kills dickie in heat of the moment more or less. Andrew's ripley never once tries to draw empathy for him. It's very much a sociopathic take and done very well.
Andrew's ripley felt a bit more unexpected than damon's. Also I loved the summer italy vibes and music in the movie. But ofc the show being b&w tells you it's not gonna be sunny the whole movie lol
They really tried to go for the realism. It's almost a commentary on the way the 1999 movie, the books (and ultimately us) glamorized what is at the end of the day a sociopathic con man. If you study the life and personality of people who do this in real life : Christophe Rocancourt, Franck Abagnale, or more recently Anna Delvey they're much closer to this. They aren't much to write about as human beings. Even when they have charm, it's superficial and phony. Our popular culture ridiculously glamorize people like that as suave, sophisticated Robin Hoods when everything about the way they behave, talk and think is rehearsed, derivative, goal-oriented and ultimately mediocre. They're snakes mistaken as lions.
Really the more I think about the 1999 movie, while I still love it, the more I resent it for basically making Tom an anti-hero and almost like a victim. Compare the murder scene. In the movie, it's basically a crime of passion that turns into self-defense with the way Dickie goes out of his ways to verbally, then physically abuse Tom. It removes any moral responsibility from Tom who looks like a victim of, instead of an exploiter of circumstances. Andrew Scott's Tom deliberately murders Dickie from behind after the latter tried to end things on civil terms. It restores Tom's agency and responsibility when choosing a life of crime. The idea of being a life-long con man by accident is just preposterous.
@@jugurthasyphax6341 That’s a really great point. Ripley also avoids presenting Marg’s character as this hopeless romantic and takes a pragmatic approach on her relationship with Dickie.
Among all scores, the 1999 movie triumps over the 2024 version. Scott, with an awful accent, acts so obvious in perpetual thoughts of killing somebody. Damon was subtle, all charms and naive, but really a bad ass. Jude Law is the complete party boy living off the riches of the family; Flynn is somone who does not know anything about painting but believes he is an artist. That makes no sense. As Freddy Miles, Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a master class of the suspicious friend, Sting's son should stick to music. Last but not least, filming in black and white does not mean this is a genre of "film noir" it is simply very dark cinematography. Highsmith did not decide to live in Italy because it looks like Russia.
Apparently Sting's son is actually his da ughter. Go figure.
@@johnbaylin6766I always thought that although Ripley is a vicious conman, he is no worse than Fred or Dickie but in a different way. Fred and Dickie would live an idle, life of luxury where they exploit the commoners who serve them. Tom is a struggling nobody who is thrown into this role and plays it out. He had no choice but to kill Dickie. Then he takes his role as a rich boy with the luxurious life. What a commentary on the classes. Tom becomes that which he despises.
I think Flynn's character makes perfect sense. Dickie thinks himself an artist because he is born rich and doesn't like work, but wants to believe he is bigger than that.
Thanks for making me laugh with "Sting's son should stick to music "(actually , she is Sting's daughter) I am doing nothing these last two days so decided to go through RUclips views on "Ripley".
I think yours is the best comment I've read together with another comment which is as matter of fact and interesting as yours.
You forgot Marge. The one in the antiseptic Netflix series is too bland. Dickie and Marge act like brother and sister in "Ripley" . I guess it's not her fault. It's the director's and Netflix's fault. There is a lot of sensuality in both films as it would be expected from young people at the height of their sexuality and living in a paradisiacal beach but the intimacy and sensuality are absent from the tamed Netflix series. I think the best Marge, the closer to the book is Marie Laforêt who plays Marge in the French film.
But I don't think Italy could be compared to Russia. The climate is too different to begin with. So are the people. And "Ripley" wasn't filmed in b&w as most think.It was shot with colour. They removed the colour in the editing but Netflix does have a copy in colour as required in their contract with the director. I guess they will release the colour copy after milking the b&w for long enough.
See here how Seymour Hoffman is so close to Freddie in the book and how Sting's daughter is so distant from it:
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 able to beat up a “pansy”? Ah, the irony!
I loved the talented mr Ripley
And have just started watching Ripley
I love this too
Having it filmed in black and white really brings home the bleakness of Ridley’s life.
In my opinion 😊
I enjoyed both versions for different reasons. However, I think the killing scene was more brutal in the series and I wished the series had explored the queer subtext a bit more.
Same, I enjoyed both, so different, it makes me feel I need to read the book 😂
1999 Talented Ripley reigns supreme.
Yes, as much as I love Andrew Scott the movie as a whole is much better than the series. And Matt Damon had a very good take on the character.
The movie has a charm to it while the show felt rather flat and lifeless. Andrew Scott nailed it as Ripley but all the other characters felt like filler.
That's racist
No
@@ParisLawLesswhy because the new version is black and white? 😂😂😂
Andrew Scott was too old to play the Ripley role, but still did an excellent job, more creepily effective than Damon. Overall, I preferred the 1999 film version, mostly because of Paltrow, Law and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, may he RIP
Nice comparison. I like the new series better. Less flash and more slowly building tension. I watched the 1999 movie a few days later for comparison and while very good, not as profound and haunting as the series. The series has many great scenes with the Inspector and hotel clerks. Great acting by Andrew Scott on a deeper level than Damon (who was also good). The black and white photography is hypnotic. The series stayed with me for days. Now to read the 5 Ripley books!
The film was wonderful. However ….. apart from the introduction of the Caravaggio thread the series is a pretty accurate version of the book. In the film the Blanchett character was an invention as was the ending. Ripley’s sexuality is undetermined in the book. Seek out one of the interviews with the director on line if interested. The series is so much better IMHO.
Why people keep saying things such as the Netflix series is a "pretty accurate version of the book" when it isn't? It puzzles me . They never read the book and are dishonest about it just for the sake of the argument? They write whatever pops in their heads? They adore the series so much that want to believe that everything about it is perfect? What is it?
Examples of the 'pretty accurate" series:
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 able 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 especially the ones concerning the personages:
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 book but it's played by a 47 year old actor who looks his age
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 the story starts 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
There is no parallels with Caravaggio in the book unlike the series
Tom is funny, charming and subservient in the book unlike the series where the nonsensical Tom created by Andrew Scott looks miserable or sombre all the time.
Tom flew to Paris and spent about a week in France after murdering Dickie unlike the series
A photo of Dickie Greenleaf's face is printed in Italian magazines 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
Again, what is wrong with these people who keep saying the Netflix series is faithful to the book or is close to the book or is a "pretty accurate" version ?
Fun fact; Eliot Sumner who plays Freddie is Sting’s kid
Sting's daughter who is pretending to be something else.
@@wjglll340 alright bigot
@@wjglll340 Sting’s kid because they are non-binary
@@genevievebe303 That's bs.
excellent!! mmmmm their gender identity & expression plays brilliantly for that role.
I found this show mediocre and bland at times. It lacked the glamour and glory that the 1999 Anthony Mingella "The Talented Mr Ripley" adaptation had.
Both are superb adaptations in their own unique ways. 90s is "La Dolce Vita", Sun-soaked Italian elite glamour and Joie de Vivre/playboys/riviera vibes. It had a lot of raw emotion and vibrant playful energy. The 2024 version is pure Film Noir. Icy, cold, calculated, subtle, moody and intense. Andrew Scott was perfection, even loved the Asexualness of the character, (as I am one myself) and it was just brilliant. He was so riveting and enigmatic. I also much preferred the new versions of Dickie (not a sleazy, user playboy but just a kind, low-key nice guy) and the Italian Inspector (he was FABULOUS! CAST HIM IN EVERYTHING!) who were both just fantastic. Sadly, in 90s version, actor Sergio Rubino's inspector is a wonderful actor and was totally wasted, love his Italian films. Not such a fan though of Dakota Fanning or Elliot Sumner, who both gave very dull, static/monotone and irritating performances. Gwyneth Paltrow and Phillip Seymour Hoffman were much better actors with more range and much more believable emotions/actions.
The only laughable scene in the new one was the woeful "disguise" scene which was so unintentionally hilarious to me in how stupidly preposterous/ludicrous it was. I really liked the parallels of Ripley & Caravaggio too and chiaroscuro light vs dark was a big theme and fit perfectly. The new versions cinematography and beautiful Italian art/architecture was a feast for the eyes. Sometimes I wish there was colour rather than B&W to showcase it but I guess Noir cinema is beautiful too. Also, JOHN MALKOVICH from Ripley's Game as a cameo was Chef's Kiss, as he was stunningly good as an older Tom Ripley in an older 2000s movie. I felt Andrew Scott and John Malkovich both were incrediblely well-cast as Ripley.
I thought the disguise scene worked because Ripley is constantly using disguises in the other novels in the Ripliad--they made what would have been an unbelievable thing (on film) work: that Ravini would not recognize Tom as Dickie...
1999 one is better, imo
Watch the 1960 one with Alain Delon.
Zaillian's version contains two murder sequences that are both directionally 30 mins in duration and have virtually no dialogue. Beyond being central narrative moments in the series, they're both tour de force sequences for their acting, cinematography and writing.
There's nothing like this in any recent television series or film. Elswit's photography is exceptional. It reveals the beauty of Italy in Tom's world, drained of all colour and as cold as hell. The Netflix series is amazing. I hope it becomes part of a set of Ripley stories.
Worst Ripley ever. This artsy b/w filming totally wrong. Ripley isn't supposed to look evil and in the b/w his eyes look dead. He's supposed to hide his blackness. That's why Alain Delon's and Matt Damon's performance as Ripley in glorious color are so much more nuanced and excellent. This is like some film school student's first try at being "different" with b/w failing miserably. Unwatchable.
Excellent observations . I especially liked the part about film school students . The director is actually a script writer ,not a seasoned film director. They did film with colour as required by the contract with Netflix but if Netflix will ever release the colour version is a mystery. I guess they will after they milk the b&w for long enough and want to attract more viewers.
I think Ripley being in black and white had more pact. I enjoyed the talented me Ripley but I think the netflix series was superb.
I like Ripley better. Andrew Scott was brilliant.
You have to watch "Plein soleil", the french version made in the 60' with Alain Delon, another different version...
I found new tv show more interesting because of more dark and sinister way that they made it. With all that beautiful cinematography and gorgeous Italy... just masterpiece of art.
Ripley is beautifully shot in black and white and offers a more in-depth look at Tom as a character. That said, I prefer TTMR with its viscerally sun soaked Italian coast and there's always Philip Seymour Hoffman's Freddy. Such a great character! Both are great, but I prefer TTMR.
The 99 version will forever remain endlessly rewatchable. Love the vibe, the colours, the cast, the pacing is perfect. It honours Highsmith's book. Plus, PSH takes the crown.
Homosexuality is very much in play in 2024 version - with Freddie and Tom. It was the ultimate reason (though implied) Dickie gave Tom in the boat for their parting and earlier on the beach when Tom defends the young men. Freddie's androgyny is emphasized by the casting choice and gay cruising discussed at length with the inspector;
Andrew Scott was perfection. 2024 wins
Agreed ! The Pace of the 2024 version is what I appreciated , 8 episodes allowed more depth IMO . Scott was superb . His brazen portrayal was one I identified with.
1999 The Talented Mr.Ripley is highly superior.
Finding it hard to get into the current version. Nothing much about the new Tom compels me - he is just boring & dull. No charm factor. Dakota can’t compete with Gwyneth. There’s nothing to hold the eye in the extremely understated “Ripley” version. It’s just vapid & motionless.
Purple Noon (1960) is the best adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel.
It is an uneven battle between the two films. Ripley has almost four times more time to flesh out the story and characters. These two films should not be compared, but seen in their own quality.
Tom is very creepy from the first in the Netflix version.
I love the Mingella film. This show is WAY better. A perfect suspense thriller. The Matt Damon version actually had too many motivations to start killing whereas the Scott version is more intriguing by being more direct and straightforward, but also ambiguous
I rewatched Talented right after finishing Ripley and give the edge to Ripley. Each character IMO is better than in the movie version. Scott’s more mature Ripley was perfect and I especially preferred Elliot Summers‘s version of Freddy over Phillips Seymore Hoffman‘s. The quiet disdain was more appealing to me than Hoffman’s over the top playboy. And as much as I like Paltrow, I thought Fanning played Marge brilliantly. She could say so much with just a look.
I watched the Netflix version and liked it, but it made me curious to see the Matt Damon version. Wow! Loved it! The Netflix version lacked the glamous, gorgeous, summer in Italy fantasy life that Tom so much wanted to be a part of. Not sure why... maybe it was the b&w, but the Netflix version's vibe was just too somber for me. Fascinating story, but I've got to go with 1999 version! Plus , the cast was phenomenal!
I love Andrew Scott, but think Matt Damon was a better Ripley. I feel like Scott's Ripley would creep people out from the get go, and I felt most people would see through him whereas I could see Damon's version charming people. But I love the black and white cinematography. This new version was just stunning to look at.
I prefer the new B&W version. The quality cinematography and mise-en-scene are well done. Also, I liked the deadpan "Bressonian" expressions of all the actors. The tension builds slowly. There is some gallows humor in certain episodes too.
2024 is for adults.
In my opinion, Andrew Scott older version of Ripley is very inconsistent with it's own writting. At first we see a more mature Ripley that is basically a conman for how many years that we are left undisclosed, but enough for us to see he has a modus operandi that kind of works, and it ain't his first rodeo. He knows enough for not getting caught, and that takes some skills even if financially he didn't make it ( yet wink wink ).
HOWEVER during the show, he commits some really stupid mistakes that gives in his facade, like dressing up as Dickie in his own room and being caught impersonating him at the same time, or getting peaked by the housekeeper as he read Dickie's mails, and many others.
If you have a stranger you just met, whom is almost 50 years old, dressed in your clothes and impersonating you, and you are a very rich guy that is well instructed enough to realize not to hang around with people from any other status, Andrew Scott CREEPIER version of Ripley was definitely the guy Dickey would never cross paths with.
Matt Dammon was young, charismatic and good looking, he could convince both Dickie's with ease. Andrew Scott Ripley has absolutely 0 charisma, which makes even less sense taking in fact that conman number 1 ability is charisma.
Andrew Scott has those dead shark eyes, like a porcelain doll, super creepy.
With "Ripley", I was always rooting for Andrew Scott to get away with his deception whereas I was never truly in Damon's corner during his con run. With that said, both adaptations are outstanding but the edge goes to "Ripley."
Both Matt D and Andrew S are very good, just different. The film is great, however the 8 part series allows the story after the murder of Dickie to be more fully detailed. The motive for killing Dickie is much more obvious in the film..Ripley is rejected and humiliated. Dickie in the seties serms too nice?
I prefer ' The Talented Mr. Ripley. ' Matt Damon's arguably best role.
I prefer Ripley has more depth and style .The characters are better and the plot makes more sense. both are very good movies, I prefer Ripley as a superior more artistic based film. Dickie persona was better in Ripley ,like someone you would meeting in Palm Beach ..old money , not the college frat party boy,,,and I did not care for the role of Philip Seymour Hoffman's..he was obnoxious , and lacked style of the upper class refined elites .Ripley has better plot development and suspense . the charters have more depth. . I think the casting is better in Ripley while the Talented Mr Ripley is more pretty people casting ..
Such a weird 2024 conceit to pop a woman in the role of Freddie and expect the 1950's male characters to act like she's a man and for viewers to also pretend that she's a man. What a bizarre, anachronistic demand to make in an otherwise excellent production. Completely blew the suspension of disbelief.
I just finished Netflix Ripley and I am blowed away. The cinematography is the first thing that stood out to me. Such a phenomenal job in shot composition, framing, and beautiful use of lighting. Ripley’s character was much more dynamic than the original. I felt this Ripley truly embodied who he was as a con artist. Constantly battling who he was on the inside believing he was a good person. I was impressed by such an amazing job they did on the Netflix version 😄
There's also the original Alain Delon 's Plein soleil (purple noon) from 1960
I found this show mediocre and bland at times. It lacked the glamour and glory that the 1999 Anthony Mingella "The Talented Mr Ripley" adaptation had.
I enjoyed them both but honestly the videography and more authentic costuming in Ripley far out surpassed The Talented Mr. Ripley
I love that John Malkovich who played an older Ripley in " Ripley's Game " made an appearance in the newest version.
This would have been so much better if you had also considered Purple Noon.
I prefer the French Veriosion, Plein Soleil (Purle Noon) with Alain Delon as Tom.
The new vision is so much better in my opinion. The old one seemed a boring and I wasn’t fond of the acting
I really liked this version, but the 90s version was just perfect.
Andrew Scott gave by far a superior interpretation of the character.
Prefered the”longer version SCOTT IS BRILLIANT AND THE PHOTOGRAPHY MUCH BETTER ….IF YOU KNOW Italy AS O DO
The 1999 film is bubblegum, with only a passing resemblance to events and the characters in the novel. The 2024 series is actually based on the novel--practically word for word and contains its subtle wit, reproduction of the period, and danger. Damon's Ripley is 'cute' but chaotic, shallow, and absurd, bearing little relation to the novel's Ripley.There is simply no comparison with Scott's faithful and brilliant interpretation. The 1999 film feels flat and stupid--almost slapstick comedy at times, while the series is dark, complex and feels like Patricia Highsmith's book. The only thing about the series is that the characters are made a bit older than Highsmith tells the reader. Other than that, it's perfect and brilliant. Forget the 1999 film.
This is certainly the worst comment I read about the relation between book and series. You obviously didn't read the book so why are you saying the series is based on the novel "practically world for word"? Or you did read the book and are trying to fool people just to praise the mediocre "Ripley"? Which one is it?
A few examples of how the series is very distant from the book. They reproduce many of the details of the story all right but there are blatant differences when it comes to the personages:
The American detective who first meets Ripley doesn't exist in the book.
Richard Greenleaf is not any near as rich in the book as he is in the series.
Ripley is not as immoral and criminal in the book as he is in the series. He never tried to cash the cheques, for example. These are from the book:
" ...He wasn't stealing money from anybody.Before he went to Europe, he thought, he'd destroy the cheques..."
"...Yet he had a feeling of guilt. When he had said to Ms. Greenleaf just now . I will do everything I can...Well, he meant it. He wasn't trying to fool anybody..."
Also, Ripley is a loner but not solitary in the book as he is in the mediocre Netflix series. As a matter of fact, a group of young people visits him in the ship before his departure to Europe.
And 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 able 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 blatant differences between the book and the Netflix series. I could go on.
Or maybe I am wrong all along and there is a different version of the book , one used by the producers of the series?
Did Patricia Highsmith wrote two "The Talented Mr. Ripley" ? My edition is from Everyman's library. I am curious about this special edition you have where Freddie Miles, for example, is a skinny guy who dresses with elegance. And where Tom actually tries to cash cheques he got through deceiving people.
Highsmith didn't write about fully fledged sociopaths/killers; her characters try to fit in, bumble along, when fate intervenes, and their fatal flaws lead them to follow along rather than challenge fate. This made Highsmith the great writer she was. This new netflix version is quite an abuse of that, is yawningly long and I won't be watching any more episodes. It's beautifully observed but there are better things to watch than the architecture of old new york and tatty 60s italy, lovely though they may be. Your comparison is very astute thanks.
"Highsmith didn't write about fully fledged sociopaths/killers; her characters try to fit in, bumble along, when fate intervenes, and their fatal flaws lead them to follow along rather than challenge fate" Excellent !
My guess is that so many people are praising Scott's miserable look and too obvious performance because they have been conditioned by all those serial killers from Scandinavian noir series.
something is wrong here. I replied to blanktom but it looks like I replied to myself !
I love this reinvarnation of Tom Ripley. The 1999 film becomes a joke over time while Purple Noon is reign supreme. This series feels like a Noir. This version isn’t a crime of passion but an eat the rich theme. The series makes fan of the mundane of climbing of the staircase or having refrigerator. If the idea is to continue beyond the first book, I really want to see more. Especially that they almost stepping to the second book of the series.
Preferred the Talented Mr Ripley and also Ripleys Game when he is played by John Malkovitch
In the movie, he is the "talented" Mr. Ripley, thus the character is portrayed in a light that woukd endear us to him somewhat. In the series he is no less "talented" but we are allowed to see his cold, calculated sociopathic machinations in greater detail, though in both instances we somewhat want him to get away with it. My knee-jerk reaction would be make the clichéd choice that the film is superior to the series purely because "its the original" but somehow the series feels more "original" than the film. Both do a marvelous job of portraying that magical charm of Italy, linguistically and cinematically, even the nuanced intonations in some Italian conversations, but even the series takes this to a new level, even doing it without colour.
I enjoyed both but would say the 2024 version probably closer to the Ripley in Patricia Highsmith's novels. Andrew Scott was really spot on, I thought.
Alain Delon was the best Ripley.
Ripley all the way. A photographic masterpiece, and incredible mood and tension . though there are flaws in the script , it is a joy. It pulls you in , completely compelling. let's hope there is a revival in film noire . It is the truest art of cinema.
Don't currently have nf, but will watch the series when I do.
I think the differences make sense because the characters are so much older.
I didn't really appreciate the film the first time I saw it. Re watched it twice since then. It is brilliant. The absolute beauty of its visuals serves to magnify the horror of the story and the characters. On the fence re the series being in b&w. 🤷
Loved your joke. Could do a comedy version of Ripley and call it that. 😂
The choice to make both Tom and Dickie reserved in the new version, and their encounters awkward and stilted, really damaged the credibility of the story and motivation of the characters for me. It doesn't help that The Talented Mr. Ripley is a perfect movie in my eyes, but this new adaptation was a snoozefest, even outside of the feature film's shadow, I'd wager. I had to switch off.
Both are amazing works of art 💯
Nobody does acting better than Johnny Flynn
They are difficult to compare, in Ripley there is much more time to explore Tom's character in depth. It also gives more of the same tension as reading Highsmith's books, a constant uneasiness as you read. I'm happy with both versions, I've read the books several times, and the Tom in my head is still the same as when I first read the book. Wasn't my first Higsmith either, that was the glass cell.
I love each of these versions for their own reasons. And I appreciate the character portrayals in each as well.
There are qualities in each version I would cherry pick to create an ideal hybrid. Some more weighted than others (for example, Sumner's Freddie didn't do a whole lot for me compared to Hoffman's. Sumner wasn't as despicable as PSH, which is a trait I think Freddie's character needed).
The noir vibe of the series is perfect, for the type of character Tom is in it. And the Rose-colored vibe works for Damon.
Damon is a tad more sympathetic, where the newer Ripley is less relatable and cold blooded.
In short, I'm glad that both versions exist, because there are qualities in each that absolutely work.
This had so much potential. Andrew Scott absolutely nails it.. despite the show feeling rushed, poorly written with half realised characters (primarily with Marge and Dickie) I was still with it.. but that last episode had me saying "what a mess!"
The opera scene is one of the finest cinematic moments of the 90's.
No contest for me.....Andrew Scott got all the nuances of the character brilliantly and we finally have a definitive Ripley on screen in the Netflix version...The black and white filming was inspired and truly captured the look and feel of the novel in all it's malevolence...You got much more of how Ripley's mind works in the portrayal by Mr Scott then Matt Damon's rather immature version..Ripley is anything but immature and this version more then proves that...Also Mr Damon's Ripley glasses keep loses it's lenses from scene to scene and even in the same edit, for heaven's sake..The Netflix series also gave us a much more faithful adaptation then the 1999 film and it is, by far, a much more superior rendering of the story from beginning to end. It was also good to see John Malkovich portraying an shady art dealer in a episode as he was Tom Ripley in the great 2002 film RIPLEY'S GAME, a filmed version of the third Ripley novel..One hopes Netflix has the balls to film all 5 books in the Patricia Highsmith's Ripley saga..
90s> but Ripley was good too. I love the photography, it was magnificent.
The movie is better. Better characters. Better backstory. More dynamic plot.
Matt Damon was horribly miscast as Tom Ripley.
Out of all actors who have portrayed the character he's easily the worst. Gwyneth Paltrow is horrible in everything she is in and the rest of the cast just phone-in their lines. The only good performance is from Philip Seymour Hoffman.
The worst part about the 1999 movie is that they change way too much of what was established in the novel. Sure, novels can't be translated directly into films but good film makers understand the core of the novel and what drivers and defines the characters. What's the point of Cate Blanchett's character in the film? She wasn't part of the novel and in the film she serves as just another shoehorned plot device.
And the ending of the 1999 film is just cringe-inducing. Tom confiding to his "gay lover" the reason why he did the things he does before killing him. He cries over it too. That's just not in his character. It's as ridiculous as if Norman Bates explained his murders with "I did it to protect my mother and I love her." at the end of Psycho or Anton Chigurh explaining his reasons why he does the coin-toss and asks people to call it. That's also what differs good film makers from bad film makers. Good ones know some things are best left for the audience to explain or left unresolved, bad ones have the need to spoonfeed the (drone-minded) audience an explanation for everything. More often than not it falls flat and just kills either a character or the story altogether.
The Ripley tv series is superior, both in that it follows the novel more closely and that it maintains the important part of the cat-and-mouse game of the Italian police investigating the case and the feeling that the noose is tightening around Ripley's neck.
The character Reeves Minot (fittingly played by John Malkovich who played Tom Ripley in "Ripley's Game") is also introduced in the final episode. He's not in the original novel but is an important figure in the later novels as a gangster Ripley does jobs for, mostly art scams.
And the killing of Dickie Greenleaf? No contest. Aside from Jude Law's version being so utterly unlikeable you actually are glad Tom Ripley rids the world of him, Tom also *apologizes* (!!) at first after hitting him with the ore and the whole thing becomes more a case of self-defense. In "Ripley" Tom coldly decides to kill Dickie right then and there and even ignores his plea for help. Chilling.
The tie in with Italian art as a reflection of Ripley's sin works well in the series. There are nice close-up shots of cigarettes being lit and important plot objects are in focus.
The way I see it the 1999 version is a filtered version of the novel which ties in everyhing too neatly and portrays Tom Ripley as a bizarre amalgam of characteristics.
How does this stack up to the 1999 version? Like two different films .
Wise the series dropped the "Talented."
When the series opens, Tom is already an older full blown murderous psychopath getting by scamming the unsuspecting for enough to pay for a cold water flat in NYC.
The series has chosen to shoot his tale in black and white to create a 40s noir thriller that captures a mood. Tom's given a chance to escape the cops on his tail with a proposal by a wealthy family. How it comes about is bizarre and totally unbelievable in contrast to the movie which flows like honey from beginning to end.
This is where the series abandons all pretense of being a remake and settles for the barest of story outlines. Gone are the interesting secondary characters who complicate the young Tom's life and lead him down the wrong path more to survive in order to have the life that the Dickie and Marge enjoy - a sun filled, music filled life of the rich he never thought he could have. In the movie, Matt Damon's Tom Ripley is a cute, sweet, charming seemingly innocent fast learner. In the series, he's pretty much dead inside and so is the Italy he goes to on assignment.
SO is the series that has given up everything to that mood -- A plot that makes sense. A script that gives the characters something to say to each other. A sunny captivating deep blue water Italy for one that is dirty, dilapidated and filled with steps.
The series lacks editing and pacing and instead of action we get scene after scene of all characters climbing steps or riding buses, cabs or trains. Were they trying to save money on this dark , tedious film school amateur production? The first rate actors deserved better. You want violence? There's plenty of that in pools of cholate syrup blood. What on earth were they thinking? The movie is a classic. See it!
1. Tom - Andrew Scott is the better actor HOWEVER the writing in Ripley is terrible, pacing way too slow to the point of nightmarish.
2. Dickey - Jude Law is a better version of Greenleaf hands down.
3. Marge - Dakota Fanning is a stiff. No emotion uninteresting. Patrow is the better version of Marge.
4. Eliott Sumner is the better version of Freddie.
So it's a mixed answer to your question. I would have liked to see A. Scott in the 1999 version of Tom but J. Law as Dickie with G. Patrow as Marge. Age differences couldn't work but talent would. The 2024 was waaaaay to long. I had to push through it.
The Malkovich appearance was a jewel. His version of Tom Ripley was best, RIPLEY'S GAME. I highly recommend checking that version of Tom Ripley. Its the best of the three versions.
For me: Tom Ripley - Alain Delon,
Richard - Jude Law,
Marge - Marie Laforêt
This is how I imagined them while I was reading the book (after watching the 2 films first).
I think that the series follows the original material much more closely. Minghella's film introduces characters that are not in the book and portrays Ripley's psyche through sexuality. The series gives a much more textural overview of how Ripley evolves as a criminal. I agree on 2. and 3., Law and Paltrow gave much more life to their characters. I do disagree about Freddie character, I just think that Sumner had a very one dimensional delivery, enjoyed P. S. Hoffmann's Freddie much more.
In the 1999 version, Hoffman was a miscast as a Freddy, far away from the book personage, but Hoffman was so good that he remade the personage to make it better and more outstanding. It was like in "Gone With the Wind", Scarlet should have been given to Paulette Goddard, should not have not been so beautiful, so divinely pretty as Vivian Leigh, but that Force of Nature that was Leigh more than made up for all the "non-right" defects, achieved perfection by wronging.
at lunacascade1125 Something is not working so I had to type to whom my reply is addressed to .A moment of relief among so many comments where people refer to Minghella's film as the "original "film ! My list is exactly the same. I would add Seymour Hoffman as the best Freddie.
The only doubt I have is that both Paltrow and Marie Laforêt are too beautiful to be Marge who "wasn't bad looking" but even so Laforêt fits the book description better than the other two actresses because "she even had a good figure, if one liked the rather solid type".
Both Laforêt and Paltrow relate to Dickie (Philippe in the French movie) in a sensual way even more than in the book in the case of the French movie but Marge and Dickie in the antiseptic Netflix series act alike sister and brother.
at lunacascade1125 Something is not working so I had to type to whom my reply is addressed to .A moment of relief among so many comments where people refer to Minghella's film as the "original "film ! My list is exactly the same. I would add Seymour Hoffman as the best Freddie.
The only doubt I have is that both Paltrow and Marie Laforêt are too beautiful to be Marge who "wasn't bad looking" but even so Laforêt fits the book description better than the other two actresses because "she even had a good figure, if one liked the rather solid type".
Both Laforêt and Paltrow relate to Dickie (Philippe in the French movie) in a sensual way even more than in the book in the case of the French movie but Marge and Dickie in the antiseptic Netflix series act alike sister and brother.
really was blown away by the new Ripley. Downright masterpiece
You Forget an adaptation of Highsmith's novel : "Plein soleil" de René Clément (1960) with Alain Delon.
Ripley…love that it was filmed black & white
Don't love so much. It was filmed with colour. They removed the colour in the editing. Netflix does have a version in colour as required in their contract with the director. They might release it after they had milked the B&W long enough.
They play it so differently. Labrador v cat
Classic absolutely ruined. Showing glamorous life style in Italy in BW completely wrong. Cast for Tom, guy with same facial expression throughout the story …
Disappointing
Both the movie and the TV show and the movie are different interpretations of the source material that it came from. It's kind of hard to compare them because one is a movie with a limited run time and this miniseries has multiple episodes. But they both seem like different interpretations of the same character. I think my only major complaint is the oddness with the age of Ripley and also Dickie not being such a likeable person in this miniseries
I thought Dickie was a more likable character in the miniseries. He seems to not wish to hurt Tom even though he isn't as fond of him as Tom is of Dickie. He also doesn't want to hurt Marge. The Jude Law character was completely amoral; I didn't think this Dickie was--just a guy who doesn't want to work much.