Ripley series, 2024. The open-minded thread.

It's been done. It's been read.

No interested. Even the earlier movie was... empty.

Only one Ripley matters, and it isn't Op's.

I was concerned about Andrew Scott’s age and how his natural charm has been removed as if by force. However, it is beautifully shot and I like the direction. It’s good.

Shame it’s unlikely to get a season 2 as this was apparently made a couple of years ago. I’d definitely watch another season.

love Andrew scott

First of all, it's the most gorgeously shot thing on TV in ages. New York and urban Italy in the early 1960s? Yes, please.

The reviews saying Andrew Scott isn't playing it sexy enough are missing the point. This Ripley isn't golden boy Matt Damon; he's kind of a schlub, and a pretender even when he's wearing expensive clothes. Yes, Scott is too old for the role, but he's playing it very well and they aged up Dickie a bit so it's more conceivable they're close in age.

Dakota Fanning plays Marge as polite but clearly suspicious of Ripley from the start.

I'm only two episodes in but vastly prefer it to the Matt Damon version (which was good).

Just saw the first episode and love it.

Highsmith novels always have a veneer of elegance over a brutally seedy core. This series seems to capture that perfectly.

R2 I think I love you.

I’ve watched three episodes and am hooked for the reasons above. I like the way they’ve made the character as R5 describes. The only flaw with it is why Dickie accepts him, but everything else works for me so I’ve given that part a pass.

I think Dickie accepts Tom, R8, because in addition to being a terrible painter he's rather a dim bulb (except when it comes to recognizing mafiosi). Oh, we met once? At a party? Well, OK... His father isn't too bright either, seemingly having done NO due diligence on Tom's background (see also, the private detective who I guess found the wrong Tom Ripley) before giving him a wad of cash and a salary. (Who else remembers traveler's checks?)

I haven't read the first book in ages, but I'm pretty sure Marge is described as kind of pretty enough but kind of plain and tending toward plump; Dickie likes her well enough but is clearly enjoying sponging off her wealth, too. When I first saw the Minghella movie I had to laugh at GOOP playing Marge, but I guess they wanted to give Dickie a girlfriend as beautiful as he (Jude Law) was. Dakota Fanning is fine so far but rather a blank slate.

I've only seen two episodes, but this Freddie? Eesh... I can see why they might want someone a complete 180 from Philip Seymour Hoffman -- who, let's face it, walked away with the entire Minghella film in his pocket in only five or six scenes -- but that's not the direction I would have gone (of course, no one asked me).

Agreed with R5 about Andrew Scott -- he's playing it very well (it's all in his eyes) so I don't mind that he's too old for the part. His accent is flawless, but I do wish they'd figure out his hair.

Andrew Scott is overrated. I agree with the Variety review. No charisma, even as dorky Tom.

Where is Elle?

Apparently two different interpretations…no complaints here.

I want a villa on the Amalfi Coast please, exactly like Dickie’s

I’m giving it a chance. The 1999 film was excellent and perfectly cast- although Kate and PSH can play anything.

[quote] PSH can play anything

Not anymore.

I’m very impressed with it, the photography is gorgeous, it’s extremely atmospheric, has a great sense of period and place and the casting is dead right. Scott is a shade to old, but his averageness, the fact that he’s a Zelig who can fit in anywhere and not be terribly memorable, is right for the character. It really captures the novel perfectly.

Watch it.

I watched ep 1 tonight.

It’s basically like a variation, only film rather than music. It’s an expressionist Ripley who is already an experienced grifter when sent to rescue Dicky, and sets out almost immediately to replace him thing-from-another-worldishly.

I have no problem with this at all. I’ll watch it through.

Initially, I had to keep pushing Matt Damon's performance out of my head. And Johnny Flynn is no Jude Law. But I got hooked on the photography and sets. Then Scott's performance took root. He's chilling in the scene where he slips into Dickie's clothes and imitates him. Two episodes in; I'll finish it.

It’s really beautiful- so worth watching to the end.

Please let us have further adventures.

I laughed out loud at two places when Dickie was showing off his horrible paintings: when he was on the couch trying to be modest, and at the reveal of his ATROCIOUS nude of Marge.

A lot of black humor, Tom struggles mightily to get rid of bodies and it’s like a one man three stooges episode at times. Love the watching cat and the beautiful cinematography.

It is a fabulous cat. Is it a Maine Coon?

I wonder if or how they’ll include the Meredith Logue character from the 1999 film. Cate Blanchett did an amazing job with a small, pivotal, and comic role. Not sure if that character was in the original novel.

I loved the film and didn’t have high expectations, but have really enjoyed this so far. Where the movie focused on the beauty and glamour of Italy, Dickie and Marge, and Tom’s sexual attraction to magnetic Jude, this one is darker and tells the story of a much darker Ripley who covets Dickie’s life more than the man himself. Very interesting and Andrew Scott (while I agree with all comments on age) is amazing in this role.

[quote] I wonder if or how they’ll include the Meredith Logue character from the 1999 film. Cate Blanchett did an amazing job with a small, pivotal, and comic role. Not sure if that character was in the original novel.

She wasn't, so I'm pretty sure they're not going to include her.

Andrew Scott is too old for the role, but he's terrific, although he's less quick-witted than Ripley is in the novels. But this is the closest adaptation to the original there's yet been. The cinematography is spectacular, and is really the star of the whole thing.

I like very much that the actor who plays Dickie Greenleaf actually looks like Scott. One of my least favorite things about the 1999 version was that Matt Damon and Jude Law did not look very much alike, and yet a big part of the plot depends on their physical similarity.

An odd thing in this version that's also in the other two versions filmed before is that Marge is too attractive. In the novel, Ripley frequently reflects on how dumpy and unattractive Marge is (though of course this could be his jealousy and his lack of attraction towards women speaking).

The showrunner, Steven Zaillian, boasts an exceptional career, highlighted by an Oscar win for co-writing the screenplay for Schindler's List.

The cinematography is truly breathtaking, ranking among the finest ever seen in any made-for-TV show. It's simply spectacular, adding an extra layer of brilliance to the series.

Eliot Sumner, the child of Sting, plays Freddie Miles, the rich snob played by Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Sumner was assigned female at birth but now uses "they" pronouns and identifies as an enbie. They are completely unbelievable as a male character in 1961. I keep expecting Tom Ripley to call Freddie a trannie, because that's what Sumner looks like.

I think he's great.

Who, r29?

Eliot Sumner.

Eliot Sumner goes by they/them pronouns, not he/him.

[quote]I think he's great

Not 'tremendous'?

R28 A strange choice, for sure. Someone must be friends with Sting and Trudie.

I just watched all of the episodes. I loved it. Everything R16 said is true. The atmosphere and cinematography is gorgeous. Andrew Scott is perfect in this. I haven't seen the movie, but I intend to. I've just ordered the book. This is a really good series. I liked the actor who played the inspector as well. So thanks ,OP, I've got something to immerse myself in.

[quote] the casting is dead right

I...think you meant dead wrong. The casting sucks.

I just realized whose affect Andrew Scott is assuming: Tom Villard’s. The reedy voice, the off-kilter smile …

Two words:

Lobby Kitteh.

🐈

Dollface thread.

Amongst my friends, we will forever refer to Andrew Scott, "hot priest."

SPOILERS! (You have been warned.)

*

*

*

Just finished the whole thing. It is absolutely worth seeing for the acting: although Andrew Scott is technically too old to play Ripley (they make Ripley and Dickie to be in their thirties instead of their twenties, which doesn't make a great deal of sense plot-wise), he is so terrific that he makes it work. Much of the series involves watching him do things wordlessly to cover his tracks, and it's hard to imagine any actor under the age of 30 able to do what he does in this.

I wound up being won over by Dakota fanning because she is so much closer in the end to Highsmith's vision of Marge than Gwyneth Paltrow was is the 1999 movie. This Marge is not from a wealthy background, and Fanning is not afraid to make her obnoxious and unlikable in the end.

The cinematography is absolutely spectacular--some of the best I've ever seen on television, and probably even better than "Shogun" which is running right now on F/X. It's like watching a gorgeous 1950s Italian movie by Visconti.

The direction is very clever, especially the use of the great Maine coon cat at the Rome apartment building. I've never seen a cat used to better effect in a film or TV show. It's like a Greek chorus--watching everything and seeing all of Ripley's schemes both where they work and fall apart.

The demerits:

Eliot Sumner just doesn't work as a cis-male character. They are distracting because they are so out of place. (As Freddie, Sumner wears fancy rich-boy Ferragamos and other fancy-boy clothes, but has a distracting long haircut that just doesn't read as period but reads instead as 2020s enbie.) When they get killed and their body has to be dragged out of the apartment and abandoned outside of Rome, you're always so aware of the oddness of the casting that dragging the corpse around begins to seem silly--it felt a bit like "Weekend at Bernie's."

The series could have been five or six episodes easily instead of eight, and the penultimate episode involves a cat-and-mouse game between Ripley and the inspector that involves dull long interviews that just go on too long, draining the scenes of their possible suspense (although the actor who plays the Italian inspector is terrific).

One of the big details of the original novel's denouement that involves Mr. Greenleaf making over his will to Tom never seemed believable in the original novel or the 1999 film, and so is wisely skipped here. But there's a new detail in this version to explain Tom's wealth at the end that doesn't make much sense either, involving a Picasso Dickie owns that Marge inexplicably never asks about after she believes Dickie is dead. (She cares about the fates of his ring and his boat, but for some reason not the Picasso.)

And a few more thoughts I would add...

The miniseries adds this very intelligent and interesting idea about Ripley's interest in Caravaggio, and it works beautifully to explain Ripley's growing interest in art appreciation and also adds the parallel that Caravaggio (like Ripley) is an artist who also happened to be a murderer.

One of the best continuing jokes other than the presence of the cat is (as other people have noted here) Dickie's horrible paintings, which just get funnier and funnier the more we see of them.

One of the things that people will object to most if they've only seen the two different film adaptations and not read the original novel is that the homoeroticism of the previous films (especially of the 1999 film) is deemphasized here. Even so, it's clear in this adaptation that many of the characters see Tom Ripley as gay, and that he is attracted to men's look (and to Dickie in particular); but the real appeal of Dickie to Tom is his wealth and taste, not his body. There's a good scene when Tom first buys Italian men's swim trunks to wear to the beach to meet Dickie and Marge and the suit is too sexy and close-cut for him to feel comfortable in it, even though Andrew Scott has a very nice period-appropriate body; he just doesn't seem sexy in it because he's so clearly uncomfortable wearing it. But when he wears Dickie's shirts and jackets later in the miniseries he's much sexier because he knows he's wearing nice things and wears the clothes beautifully.

[quote] the penultimate episode involves a cat-and-mouse game

Did it involved the Maine coon cat?

[quote]Did it involved the Maine coon cat?

It is in that episode, yes.

I. Want. That. Ashtray! (I can't decide if I want Tom's Rome apartment or his Venetian villa.) Some spoilers below:

Need a new drinking game? Take a sip every time you see a staircase or an ashtray. You won't make it to the hour's end sober. The cinematography and art direction are *superb*, but it got to the point in the last two episodes that I'd say "Stairs!" every time I saw some. And there's a scene in the last episode where four characters are seated in chairs, each with a side table with a glass ashtray.

Loved Inspector Ravini. However, I didn't buy that he wouldn't see right through Ripley's (pretty awful) disguise in Venice, despite the low lighting and the distance between them. Also, the actor slipped once in the last episode and said "Freddie Miles" instead of "Mee-lez" (which he returned to a couple of lines later). As for Eliot Sumner, I thought, Well, this is a different take on Freddie, just smarmy in another way. And he turned out to be the only gay character, so there's that. (Is it wrong that I laughed every time his head thunked on the staircase?)

How long can Tom live off the sale of the Picasso?

I think the idea is that Tom will be set up by the John Malkovich character as a shady art dealer (which is what he becomes in the novels) and can support himself that way in the style he wants to live in. The sale of the Picasso will offer a bridge for him in terms of cash.

I've heard vaguely they want to keep this going as a series, and would devote a season to each of the remaining four books. I don't know if that's true or not, though.

R46-yes the disguise was completely unbelievable, especially since he did nothing to alter his voice. It was laughable. Still I very much enjoyed the overall experience.

The weirdest thing about the disguise was that it made Andrew Scott look like Mark Ruffalo.

[quote] The weirdest thing about the disguise was that it made Andrew Scott look like Mark Ruffalo.

Frightening.

I made it through all eight. Why it needed eight episodes is a mystery. Here are my thoughts. Spoilers ahead.

It’s remarkably sexless.

The Freddy character being played by a woman was a giant mistake.

The cops never asking for pictures of Dickie and Tom was completely unbelievable.

Dakota was fine but barely registered. Same with the actor who played Dickie.

Andrew Scott is a wonderful actor but him wearing a wig to fool a detective was also unbelievable since he sounded and looked Exactly The Same.

The photography was beautiful and it was sometimes suspenseful but overall it was too long and doesn’t hold up. C+

I am skipping replies for now. I saw all 8 episodes.

Gorgeous. Unlike anything I’ve seen on TV in a long time. Great pacing. Good tension.

Andrew is very handsome. He looks great for 47. I had no idea.

One of the best limited series I’ve seen in a long time.

It's limited.

I loved it. Some of the most consistently stunning visuals I’ve seen on film. The photography, art direction, locations are next level. Art and architecture are used to tell the story. I felt transported to another time and a place. The series hews more closely to the book and walks back many of the Hollywood-y tropes from the film (which I also love). I don’t want it to end.

Spoiler:

I agree, the only ridiculous thing was the detective not seeing through the disguise, which wasn’t bad, but the voice was exactly the same AND they stood close at the end and shook hands. Other than that, just about everything was perfect. Visuals, directing, use of objects, visuals, visuals, visuals. Damn. It’s just gorgeous filmmaking. Andrew is very good and very handsome.

r51, the actor playing Freddy is named Elliot Sumner and they don’t identify as a she or he. They identify as non-binary. The transphobia that is demonstrated within the gay community, and mostly by gay white males, is stupid as fuck. If, heaven forbid, Trump gets reelected, your ass is no more safer than the trans community. Jesus!

You might embrace the notion of "solidarity at all cost" by eschewing criticism, but there's nothing wrong with challenging or mocking the literal-mindedness of "non-binary identities." Most of us grew up during a time when you could get to know a person and gradually discover they were a wonderfully complex mix of masculine and feminine qualities, like all of us, and weren't handed a set of "preferred pronouns" in advance. Besides, the minimally talented Elliot "child of Sting" Sumner does not live in the real world, and is always going to read as female to audiences regardless of how "they" identify.

As someone wrote on another DL thread:

"There are thousands of ways to be a woman and thousands of ways to be a man. 'Non-binary' is the idea that there are limited ways to be a man and limited ways to be a woman and if you don't align with them you need to pretend you are neither."

I haven't watched it yet but DL fave Kevin Sessums has been watching it and losing what's left of his mind over how much he hates it on FB. Therefore I plan to watch it and assume it will be great.

[quote]the only ridiculous thing was the detective not seeing through the disguise, which wasn’t bad, but the voice was exactly the same AND they stood close at the end and shook hands.

I believe that was intentionally obvious. The conceit being that the force of Ripley's con lies in his ability to make you disbelieve your lying eyes and accept the con nonetheless.

Eliot Sumner is another self-hating lesbian who now claims not to be a woman because being a lesbian is not considered cool and doesn't give enough oppression points. Ironic, considering the kinds of lives lesbians were forced to read in Patricia Highsmith's day, as outlined in books/films like Carol.

R56…GWM here and yes, I’m quite trans-phobic. I hate that I’m “grouped” with trans men/women/whatever because I have nothing at all in common with them and I’m absolutely tired of them being thrust upon me as a gay male that I should be sympathetic and inclusive - I am neither. And as far as I’m concerned, pull me out of the ridiculous acronym LGBTQ - I’d like a separate group for just the G’s please.

r18, that is EXACTLY how I started watching. I had to rid my memory of the Matt Damon/Jude Law production. Once I did that, I was totally into it.

As many have mentioned, the cinematography is beatiful. Many of the shots are like framed b/w photographs.

I LOVED Inspector Ravini (dry humor) and the landlady of Ripley's Rome apartment. Great character actors.

Watching Ep 8 tonight!

R61 JFC you’re a fragile flower.

Elliott looked like Cate Blanchette.

I watch a LOT of Italian shows on MHzChoice and have found that Italian character actors are the best in the world.

The cast of the Talented Mr. Ripley with Matt Damon, Jude Law, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Cate Blanchett and Gwyneth Paltrow was perfection. It cannot be duplicated. I haven't watched this version. But I think it would be unwise to compare them.

Not to mention unnecessary.

R58. Exactly it hits close to home.

[quote]I think that’s what it’s like to watch him as an actor too… like he can stop time with his honesty.

Posted too soon.

I don’t care what she identifies as, it was a mistake to have a woman play Freddie.

R70 are you kidding????? I haven't watched it yet, but I didn't know that. Phillip Seymour Hoffman immortalized Freddie!

It was a choice. You are supposed to believe her as a gay man but it doesn’t work.

Elliott Sumner has star quality. Sorry, haters, but they show massive amounts of charisma on camera. And you can bitch about miscasting and bitch about how they identify off camera and bitch about gender blind casting but a star is a star and that kid has IT.

[quote] The cast of the Talented Mr. Ripley with Matt Damon, Jude Law, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Cate Blanchett and Gwyneth Paltrow was perfection.

And yet they are mostly little like the characters in the original novel (and Blanchett's character does not even appear in the original novel--she was an invention of the screenwriter).

So let me get this right: gay men not appreciating the casting of Eliot Sumner as Freddie is the reason Trump is going to be reelected in November.

I was disappointed he didn't kill Marge.

Is Nepotrans the latest thing?

Now gay actors have to deal with women taking their roles. Yeesh.

Hamlette

i know its not as if men didnt play all the womens roles for the first couple millenia of theater

R73 👏👏🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

[quote] Elliott Sumner has star quality. Sorry, haters, but they show massive amounts of charisma on camera. And you can bitch about miscasting and bitch about how they identify off camera and bitch about gender blind casting but a star is a star and that kid has IT.

"Non-binary" lesbian (albeit self-hating) Eliot Sumner, i.e. a woman, was cast to play a gay man because, apparently, all LGBTQIA++ and queers are the same thing. In the minds of the cultural decision-makers and product marketers, a "nonbinary" female is the equivalent of a gay man because we are all the "LGBTQ+ queer community".

Eliot is 33 and has been trying to make it in the entertainment industry in various guises for years and years. If she's only just getting her break now at this age, with her famous parents backing her, then she hardly has "star quality".

[quote]Elliott Sumner has star quality.

I agree. Just like Marilyn. Their next project should be "Gentlemen Prefer Trans".

I enjoyed this version, and it is definitely gorgeous to look at. I did wonder what it might have looked like in color, too, although the black and white works and is very lush.

Agree that the actors (Dickie and Tom) seem too old for the roles, but it still manages to work. Overall, I like this take on the story but would have to say the Damon/Law version tells the story with better pacing. Except, of course, you have to tolerate Paltrow's abominable acting in that one.

I have to take a star off the Netflix version for the ridiculous anachronistic trans/non-binary casting. Make the character female if you want, but stop shoe-horning modern shit into period pieces. It takes away from one's suspension of disbelief. The same goes for casting a black woman as a wife of Henry VIII and countless other examples in recent years. It's distracting and silly on film. It may work on stage, but I have an issue with it on film, in particular. If you want diverse casting and to do a period piece, find something appropriate that checks all of the diversity checkboxes you feel compelled to mark. There are many stories that have never been told, after all.

The actor playing Dickie gave such a blank performance that he reminded me of Robert Redford in The Great Gatsby.

Spoiler but when they did the autopsy of Freddie, I was expecting them to say it’s a woman. But then they said nothing and so I realized it was just stunt casting.

It’s absurd to compare this to the Minghella movie version of 1999 or even to “Purple Noon.” It’s not like the prints of those films have been destroyed to make way for this one.

For me, this is the best adaptation of Highsmith’s novel I’ve ever seen. Of course some will find it too long, too leisurely, too highbrow, too arty, too this or too that. I thought it was brilliant TV, among the best miniseries Netflix has done (or in this case, picked up)..

As for the casting of Eliot Sumner, there’s room for disagreement, obviously. As someone who doesn’t think Philip Seymour Hoffman’s every fart was Oscar-worthy, I thought Sumner helped make this small but pivotal role very memorable. Why not have Freddie seem sexually ambiguous, confident and aggressively insinuating? His sexual ambiguity seemed both an affront and a challenge to Tom’s own sexual issues, and I liked the idea that this may have caused Tom to loathe and fear Freddie on sight. It certainly caused a lot of gratuitous loathing here . . .

Too many of you here are wedded to your comfort zones and unwilling to be challenged by the art and entertainment you watch. Keep watching Matt, Jude and Gwynnie in “The Talented Mr. Ripley” if that is your comfort food or your idea of the perfect literary adaptation. No one’s stopping you. But at least realize this “Ripley” was done with high ambition, a high degree of difficulty and a ton of talent and artistry even if it isn’t exactly your thing. It was very much mine.

I watched Ripley as soon as it came out (two episodes) a day and purposely read no reviews before watching it, so I had no idea who Eliot Sumner was. So I just saw their performance as Freddie as a complete 180 from PSHoffman's -- slender, fey, smarmy twink. While I prefer Hoffman's Freddie I thought Sumner's was perfectly valid, and because I knew nothing about the actor I did not see it as stunt casting.

R89 Jean-Marie!

agreed with r89 its really tedious to listen to all these anti-woke reactions to every on-screen representation of anything that isnt a cisgender white person. It's a shallow lazy kneejerk defensiveness against anything that lies outside the self-congratulatory comfort zone of the bigots' own identity and experience.

r89, you sound very bitter.

It's funny how much people like r92 complain about the word "woke," and yet even when no one uses that word they complain vociferously about the "anti-woke"

If the police had discovered that Freddie was a woman, that would have been an interesting twist. But having a woman play a man is tedious and unnecessary for a drama set in 1961.

You mean you don't find the stunk casting both deadpan and clever!!?

The one thing I noticed missing (maybe I just zoned out) was the homosexual undertones of the 1999 movie. I didn't observe Dickie getting uncomfortable with Tom's attentions. Did I just miss this in this adaptation?

Also, Luccio a.k.a lobby cat is thinking, "gurrrrl, if I could talk you'd be in so much deep shit, Tom Ripley."

I wonder if they would have cast a woman to play a heterosexual male character.

[quote] I didn't observe Dickie getting uncomfortable with Tom's attentions. Did I just miss this in this adaptation?

I certainly noticed it.

Dickie isn't uncomfortable about it rather he's annoyed or pissed or disappointed.

Amen r89!

As someone who loved the 1999 film, I am only three episodes into this version and I’m really enjoying it, especially the b&w cinematography. I really hope they decide to adapt the other novels which I’m not that familiar with.

Correct me if I’m wrong but in PURPLE NOON, wasn’t it implied that Tom Ripley was apprehended by the police at the end?

They significantly played up from the novel the homoeroticism for the 1999 film, but the makers of this miniseries did not owe anything to that adptation (why should they?). Their portrayal of homoerotcism in this is much more in keeping with the original novel.

R102, thanks. I've never read the novel(s), so I was wondering if that was an original theme in the books or cinematic liberties in the 1999 movie.

They owe nothing to any adaptations. This series stands, proudly, on its own.

Not sure if this has been written in the press materials but it took more than a couple of years to shoot the series as it was interrupted because of Covid in pre-production and filming was really slowed down in those first long months of Covid procedures, aggravated by all sorts of inane Italian rules.

Some hair notes:

I loved the series and found the casting of Sumner very provocative yet still think their performance would have been immeasurably enhanced by a period 1961 hairstyle, maybe something even a bit 50s retro like an Elvis pompadour. The style they wore was too modern and too femme.

I also thought Marge's hair being so unstyled all the time was not really true to a young woman in 1961. Loved Fanning's performance though, loved her stillness and the way she was so judgmental from the very beginning. But couldn't quite get onboard with her seeming change of heart (if that's what her strange behavior was) towards Tom in the last episode.

And can we talk about Andrew Scott's awful wig? Can't believe this hasn't been mentioned (or not much) in either of the current Ripley threads. I always thought he looked wigged on Fleabag. I suspect after this series wrapped Scott had some major permanent hair replacement done as his hair has looked fairly natural in recent projects.

I loved how they occasionally played background music from the La Dolce Vita soundtrack.

I tried to not to notice Andrew Scott's hair. I seem to remember it was fine at the beginning, but about halfway through sometimes it was combed straight back, which made his hairline look odd, and other times it was combed straight back but with a little more of a pompadour, which somehow made his hairline look less odd. I didn't know about the break in filming, per R104, so I imagine that scenes were filmed way out of sequence, which at least offers some explanation. But, really, after awhile I stopped looking at his forehead (because his eyes were doing all the work).

As for the homoeroticism, there wasn't any. Tom didn't seem to want Dickie, he just wanted to be him.

Andrew's fake hair line became very obvious in the scenes opposite the wily Inspector, when the camera kept alternating closeups between the two, one real, one wiggy.

My straight friends LOVE it

Love the cat

Johnny Flynn was so nondescript as the English writer boyfriend of the suicidal artist in "The Clouds of Sils Maria" 11 years ago. He and Joe Alwyn seem interchangeable.

R105: I thought the same thing about Eliot Sumner’s hair when I first saw it, but then I remembered reading in “All These Years,” the massive and excellent book on the Beatles that came out a decade ago, that the ‘caesar’ cut was all the rage among male students and artists in France around 1960, and it was when the Beatles played in Hamburg, Germany in 1961, that their artist/photographer friend Astrid Kirchherr gave them the haircuts that they made famous on American TV early in ‘64.

So an argument can be made that after bumming around artsy Europeans for a year or more, Eliot would certainly be the type to pick up a hairstyle like that.

Elliott Sumner’s casting is neither breaking nor making. Their appearance is brief, but memorable, so it seems like a win?! The entire 8 episodes are a triumph.

It seems unlikely to get any sequels, given Andrew Scott’s age and the fact that it’s not very popular on Netflix.

R114 — What makes you say it isn’t popular on Netflix? It debuted last Friday, I believe. On Saturday it was #10 on their list of the most watched TV shows in the U.S. and it’s been at #4 every day since. Add in some really excellent reviews and possible awards/nominations because of the high quality of the series and I’d say it ‘s at least 50/50 that Netflix will want to continue it, especially since they picked it up for relatively little money from Showtime.

Maybe, but Netflix would have to finance any sequels.

True, R116 and all the streamers are more circumspect these days about the money they spend. But I don’t think they would have acquired something of this quality without at least a thought that it might be a multiple season series. And it ‘s at #4 again today (Wed,, April 10) suggesting good word of mouth.

r112, I thought Eliot's hair was completely out of period, not knowing the Beatles influence. I'm watching this in French, and as I don't know Eliot's real voice (they may have used it for the wounded sounds, which sounded more feminine to me), the whole time I was watching, my brain was thinking, "Something is odd about that actor, and I cant put my finger on it". '

There could be no "Beatles influence" in 1961 when this Ripley takes place. There were no Beatles in 1961. And Paul and John wore their hair in a duck's back pompadour a la the Teddy Boy style until 1963. That would have been the perfect hairstyle for Freddy.

Please, let's have a few more posts about Elot's hair.

I just started watching and so far I'm liking it.

I have to say both Tom Ripley and Dickie Greenleaf in this version seem a bit older than they should be.

And what do you think about Freddy's hair, r122?

I've only seen Freddie briefly. I got to the part where Tom Ripley says he doesn't care for Freddie. It was after Freddie invited Dickie and Marge to celebrate Christmas. I hope they build Freddie's character better than they have so far because he just doesn't seem that important to me. Phillip Seymour Hoffman sort of dominated his scenes. He looked the part. Overweight, unattractive, smug obnoxious, and you had a sense something was off. He radiated irritation at the very least, and outright antagonism towards Tom at most. But with this Freddie, it's all sort of "meh."

The filmmakers took a big risk with long leisurely shots in between acting scenes, especially for our ADD generations. So much thought with the sets, lighting, costumes for B & W, the saturated blacks, the gleaming surfaces. Although way too many stairs for 2 episodes.

Purple Noon airing on TCM today. Very excited to see yet another version of the Ripley story.

[quote]So much thought with the sets, lighting, costumes for B & W, the saturated blacks, the gleaming surfaces.

And the cat.

I found watching the characters ascending and descending all those marble staircases hypnotic R125

While I loved this series, the detective not seeing a photo of the real Dickie until the final act strained credulity.

These Italian police are so rude, especially the head investigator. He was being such an ass to Marge in episode 7.

I agree R129, but I can also rationalize it because Ripley had that fake passport and they never questioned it. But the other thing thing that strained credulity for me was Marge. When she visited Ripley in Venice. I do wish they would have had a couple more scenes with John Malkovich. Would like to have seen his character amplified a bit.

All the contrivances the last few posters have taken issue with come from the book. The fun comes in watching Tom walk a tightrope and fooling people into believing he is Dickie and then Tom again. Obviously with today’s technology this kind of fraud would be easier to expose. But you gotta go woth it.

‘This coast is saturated’: Italian village braces for post-Ripley crowds

Netflix hit series based on Patricia Highsmith novel brings prospect of surge in visitors to Atrani area of Amalfi coast

When Andrew Scott’s eponymous character in the hit new Netflix series Ripley travels from Naples to the village of Atrani, the rickety bus has the road almost to itself; a solitary Vespa passes going the other way. When he tracks down Dickie Greenleaf at the beach, the rich American and his girlfriend are the only people sunbathing on the pristine sands.

Visitors to the Amalfi coast today will note the contrast. Unlike in 1961, the road between Positano and Salerno is now known as much for its traffic jams as for the views. Atrani may be less busy than its neighbour Amalfi, but in summer its beach is taken over by rows of umbrellas and sunbeds. A small area, perhaps a fifth of the space, is public spiaggia libera.

In the village, which has one four-star hotel and a few B&Bs and holiday lets, some businesses are pleased about the Netflix exposure. Antonio Buonocore, who runs the beachside restaurant Le Arcate, said: “The impeccable photography has certainly brought our little village extra publicity.”

But others worry how sustainable this will be. Antonella Florio, of Maison Escher apartments, said: “This coast is saturated with overtourism. If more visitors come because of the series, I sincerely hope they come in low season.”

Atrani is more beautiful in color. In B & W, it was looking kind of bleak.

Lol the amount of stairs in the first episode certainly turns me off of going to Amalfi. Also the difficult journey to get out there. Things really haven't changed much since the 60s.

I watched Purple Noon (the 1960 film adaptation) and really enjoyed it. It moves much faster than the later versions and is very well done.

R135 go early in the season, April or late, September/Oct. and travel there very early in the day. Like at sunrise. I wouldn’t go anywhere near there in June-August. Maybe Ravello would be ok.

The final hotel desk clerk who looked a bit like John Cassavetes — Santo Cielo!

Regarding the place where Tom Ripley lived in Venice. Was that a hotel or an apartment? If apartment, GOOD LORD! That place is huge.

OMG! I’m shocked that Tom didn’t kill Marge in the season finale. She was being such an obnoxious bitch!

In Venice there are large, palazzos on the canals, old, mold filled, damp and these palazzos can either be single homes or carved up into several apartments. Large, ornate apartments.

I think Ripley's Venetian home was a single house. He walked up and down stairs, he was in and out, and it was p[retty obviously all his.

And it came with servants! Ripley said it was cheap in the off season. Living large already.

I didn't like Dakota Fanning's interpretation of Marge. Not at all. Gwyneth was much better. And her character was written better. As for the off season in Venice? It's very rainy. It floods, it's damp. And those palazzos smell of it and need so much maintenance you'd have to be insanely wealthy to ever want to own one.

When I began watching, it seemed so dreary in black and white. I thought perhaps the cinematography would explode into colour once Tom arrived in Atrani. Having completed watching, I'm glad that it remained in black and white for the entire series though. It really was beautifully shot.

My thoughts on Freddie - when that character first showed up, I thought he looked like a little boy playing dress up who needed the snotty attitude slapped out of him. The hair looked like a cheap wig. I don't like Sting, or his cunt of a wife. I had no idea it was their child playing Freddie until I read this thread. I guess I just have an instinctual dislike of British poseurs.

Overall, I enjoyed it and I hope they do film another Ripley adventure.

Dakota Fanning's Marge creates a lot of tension and I think that's good.

R146, yes, initially MArge did create a lot of tension. What ruined it for me was that it seemed like she abandoned t hat pose when she came to Venice and started partying with Tom.

Marge’s depiction in this RIPLEY is much closer to the book.

A cow and dilettante, a mediocrity aware that she needs Dickie though he doesn’t need her at all, and jealous of anyone who crashes their twosome. Once he’s out of her life and she’s decided he must be gay, she decides to cash in. Even Dickie’s father mentions to Tom that she’s tiresome. She is, and was from the get-go.

While this is a much less glamorous Marge than Paltrow’s, it fits better with the overall story as written — Marge as grudging, jealous pill.

Loved Dakota Fanning and totally agree with r148 but I was nevertheless disappointed that Marge seemed to become a different character in Venice. I couldn't really see why she'd realistically remain with Tom and spend so much time with him, especially as it had been clearly established that she strongly suspected him of evil wrongdoing if not outright murder in the disappearances of Dickie and Freddie.

Marge in the book is actually unattractive, clumsy, big-boned, a spoiled debutante/fag hag. Though Fanning was not that, I appreciated they didn't make Marge just a pretty ingenue.

All of Sting’s daughters are annoying AF.

Scowling while vaguely resembling Cara Delevigne isn’t star quality. As someone mentioned, Sumner has been trying for fame as a model, in the music industry and as an actress since she was a teenager. Until recently, she went by “Coco Sumner.” Pretending to be trans, instead of just being a lesbian, is a strategic move, but she’s not intesting and never has been.

All three of Sting’s daughters seem to think they’re owed acting careers which is funny considering both parents are lousy actors as well.

*interesting ^

r149 "unattractive, clumsy, big-boned, a spoiled debutante/fag hag" Lens Dunham would've been perfect. When I read the book I kept picturing the Farley Granger's ex-girlfriend with the glasses from Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, another Highsmith story. She liked that character of the woman in the way.

Cate Blanchett should have played Marge, sans fard with 10 extra pounds.

Yaaaasssss, Lens Dunham would be the perfect Marge. Well, next time..............

Lens can’t actually act and I don’t think it was shot in widescreen.

Marge isn't repulsive to the male gender.

[quote] … I don’t think it was shot in widescreen.

😂😂😂

Gorgeously shot and well cast except for that binary nepo baby as Freddie. Every second Sumner was on screen it took me totally out of the story. Sumner undoubtedly presents as a female so it made absolutely no sense why Freddie was referred to as “Mr” and a “man” and Tom never seemed to notice this. Absolutely ludicrous. Shame. This could have been a huge career boost for the proper actor who played it. This was certainly true for Philip Seymour Hoffman.

One of the best things I have ever seen on television.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was perfect as Freddie, IMo. He was typical of a very unattractive rich guy who lived well and had attractive friends. A real snob.

[quote] Marge isn't repulsive to the male gender.

She certainly is in Highsmith's original novel, at least to Tom Ripley. We repeatedly hear from him about how unattractive he finds her.

Just the name.......Marge.

Tom may have been disparaging of Marge simply because he wanted Dickie. In his eyes she was gross. But in real life maybe she was just ordinary. The other thing I noticed is the affair dickie had with the local girl. It was barely implied in this version and in the last versions with Jude Law, she's pregnant and commits suicide. I get it, this was a leaner version. But I missed the Cate Blanchett part.

Have you watched the Minghella version lately, r164? Cate Blanchett is outrageously bad in her one scene. I was a little shocked when I re-watched it recently. That character isn't in the novel anyway.

Blanchett is fucking awful r165 - laughably terrible.

I know Blanchett's part was made up for the Minghella movie and her character isn't in the original Highsmith book (which I haven't read in ages). Was the young woman Dickie knocked up invented for the movie as well?

I can't remember, it's been a long tiome since I read the novel, but I think the pregnant local girl was also an invention of Minghella.

I think that "The Talented Mr Ripley" cast, locations, the screenplay, the music.....were perfect.

Wrong casting, wrong aesthetics. Andrew Scott is a good actor but he's completely miscast in the role of Ripley, who should be much younger and much prettier, an have the charm an seductiveness of a total sociopath. And the film noir approach to the story is completely too dark. This is a story of murder than takes place under the sunny Italian skies, not a 1940's detective story.

R170 perhaps Gidget Goes To Rome would be more up your alley.

How dare you R159! Sting and Trudie are such talented actors their kids are entitled to be cast!!

I like the black and white cinematography. Also the series takes pains to show a lost world of SLOW and QUIET culture. There is time to listen to softer sounds and to watch banal daily life activities. Italy is shown belonging to the Italians. There is a distinct vibe that the American expats are fish out of water. I liked the small joke of the crime photographer polluting the gorgeous road outside Rome with his popped flashbulbs. That was really Italian

That was really 1950s.

Cate Blanchett is in more than one scene in the 1999 RIPLEY.

Eliot Sumner is currently having an affair with the separated wife of a (male) scion, a member of a dynastic art dealer family.

The affair with the local girl who commits suicide only takes place in the Minghella film, and it's not in the original novel.

I really don't understand why some of you think this miniseries had a moral obligation to recreate the additions created for the Minghella film. I enjoyed that film enormously, but it is its own thing. This new adaptation is of the original novel.

[quote] Andrew Scott is a good actor but he's completely miscast in the role of Ripley, who should be much younger and much prettier,

"Should be" much younger, yes. "Should be" much prettier, no.

Again, you're just saying this because Alain Delon and Matt Damon were pretty when they made this film. The original novel does not talk about Ripley's "prettiness."

[quote] I really don't understand why some of you think this miniseries had a moral obligation to recreate the additions created for the Minghella film. I enjoyed that film enormously, but it is its own thing. This new adaptation is of the original novel.

Totally agree!

R177 Because they are illiterate cunts who haven't read Ripley, or any book, in over 30 years.

Except the new mini-series also diverges in several ways from the original novel, but in different ways than the Minghella film did.

For example, Marge does not stay with Tom in his Venetian villa, nor go to a party with him. Does she even go to Venice to see him?

So?

[quote] I really don't understand why some of you think this miniseries had a moral obligation to recreate the additions created for the Minghella film.

Maybe what they're saying is that the Minghella film more appropriately captured the feeling of the novel, as did René Clement's Plein Soleil.

Except that it didn't, r83.

Ripley absolutely captured the atmospheric seediness better than either of the two you cite.

The series allowed us to spend a bit of time with all the fabulous minor Italian characters. For example the staircase motif was countered by all the brief, witty moments with hotel desk clerks. The Rome apartment concierge, and her cat. In a larger role, he Italian detective is excellent and wry. Wonderful character I would watch a series based on him.

I finished the series. The ending was far fetched. Hard to believe the detective would never see a picture of the missing man. I still loved every minute of it. Andrew Scott was amazing.

Late to this, I know, but I just binged the shit out of this. Best thing I've seen in ages, best looking TV show... maybe ever? What an eye the director has, nearly every shot could be printed out and framed. This is *exactly* how you shoot in B&W. Incorporating Caravaggio's shadow play was genius and the languages mistakes the Italians were making revealed an eye for detail not many showrunners have anymore.

Dreamt I was a serial killer on the run two nights in a row and woke up almost out of breath, I can't recall the last time a show had that effect on me. That lesbian (trans?) character was scarier than the shark in Jaws, I cheered when he killed her.

Not sure what the critics or the DL posters who trashed the show are smoking, but I'm not interested in having any of that myself. Andrew Scott was perfection. Haven't seen the movie and never will, can't stand Matt Damon.

The Zillenial “I’m so mysterious. Watch me! Look at my mysterious facial expression.” brand of acting is tiring.

The guy who played Dickie was a horrible actor and lacked charisma. The Fanning girl acted like she was imitating Paltrow’s performance exactly. The Ripley guy was okay at moments, but way too Aspie and lacking charm. This entire thing was a mess that looks alright because of the locations, sets, and the black & white covers many sins.

[quote]Andrew Scott is a good actor but he's completely miscast in the role of Ripley, who should be much younger and much prettier,

I still don't understand this argument made by so many. What does youth have to do with this character? It makes zero sense that a young newbie scammer would be pulling this level of scamming, and the police taking his testimony seriously. Much like Claudia in Interview With the Vampire being five years old, it's complete nonsense and a mistake in the source material itself.

As for beauty, that's completely subjective, I find Andrew really pretty.

I've never paid much attention to Fanning, but she was just marvellous in this, always had me on my toes. The actor playing Dickie was perfect in the role, such old money presence to him.

Glorious show, I truly wonder about the cognitive capacity of those who didn't like it.

R189 because he’s supposed to be around the same age as his “former” classmate. Are you stupid? Also, he is basically born with these skills.

The 1999 film is far superior in every way to this shitshow.

They’re DIFFERENT, one can enjoy both approaches.

Why do some of you idiots need to declare yourselves for one team or the other, spewing so much unnecessary invective?

It is sadly sexless. The only sexy about it is Italy, the cinematography.

Elliott Sumner is dreadful. I read that the director picked him because he had a quiet, unassuming approach to the role whereas more than 90% of those auditioning were doing impersonations of a sort of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance. Different and unassuming, yes, but miles short of good.

The gorgeous cat on the gorgeous walnut bench in the entry hall of the Rome apartment are fantastic, as are the scenes of Caravaggio paintings.

The thing I like particularly about Andrew Scott's performance is the spectrum of irritation and even disgust he shows when he's not "on," not performing his role either as Dickie or as "good Tom." He is so easily irritated by having to confirm to what is expected of him from one character to the next, and not least from himself.

Matt Damon was the one wrong thing in the Minghella film. Ripley's character might have been performed well in a real variety of ways, but Damon had only one moment (where his face falls like a soufflé in his.last scene with the living Freddie. Very different styles/approaches, but I find Damon's very wrong and Scott's very good.

R192 what approach, a 47 year old playing a recent college student? It’s beyond ridiculous and suspension of disbelief. Hollywood casting has lost its mind.

Ripley’s apartment in Rome was my idea of perfection

The new cast is 47, 41, and 30 way too old.

The 1999 movie cast were all in their late 20s. Matt was 29 and GOOP & Jude were 27.

R 195 — Mine too, but it was a set. Probably recreated from real Rome apartments, but a set rather than a specific location.

I’d like his landlady too, and a building mascot cat named Lucio, all preferably on the Via Julia in Rome, which is where I’d love to retire.

[quote] I still don't understand this argument made by so many. What does youth have to do with this character?

Everything. The story from the original novel was of a [italic]Bildungsroman,[/italic] which is about a young person being educated in the ways of the world and becoming developed. That happens in your late teens or early twenties--not in your thirties (and certainly not at age 47, which is Andrew Scott's actual age).

Also: for the plot twists to work, Tom has to be roughly the same age as Dickie, and it makes no sense Dickie's parents would recall him from Europe in his thirties--they would have wanted him to come back a few years after he had finished college so he could get his act together.

R192 is an idiot. Probably a radioactive smooth brain Zillenial.

[quote]I’d like his landlady too, and a building mascot cat named Lucio, all preferably on the Via Julia in Rome, which is where I’d love to retire.

Here's a possibility, R197. Needs some cosmetic attention and probably work to the kitchen and bathroom, but that's easy. Suitably Ripley-esque rooms and building. You could do it up to something elegant, or down to Ripley's budget for things a bit out of taste (and cheaper) than the architecture would suggest. Similar things in and area Via Giulia are currently listed at €1.8 to €2.

My favorite street in Rome

R200 that apartment's surface decoration is not very nice but the volumes are nice as they are in most old Italian apartments. Also Italians rarely install shitty floors so there is always that.

[quote] a 47 year old playing a recent college student? It’s beyond ridiculous and suspension of disbelief.

Except in this version he is not playing a recent college student.

Except he should.

I just watched the last two episodes last night. Venice and the palazzo are wonderful, but Palermo even more so for me. It took an episode or two to settle in with it, but an excellent series I thought.

The senior Mr. Greenleaf and his agent were underdeveloped or otherwise off, I thought, as had been the case throughout; otherwise a great last two episodes.

What I liked about the Andrew Scott version is that it shows the contrast more effectively of how he was living before he went to Europe at Mr. Greenleaf's request. It gives a lot of context.

R200 Good discovery, the building, livingroom and kitchen look just like the set of his Rome apartment.

44 KEY Differences Between Ripley (2024) and The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999).

Rare example of a number of excellent treatments or variations on the same source material. This doesn't have to be an argument.

I've developed a thing for Andrew Scott. Don't know what it is about him, but I would become very aggressive with him if I could.

If Tom and Dickie don’t remember meeting, what could have prompted Dickie’s father from reaching out to Tom?

^to reach out

I'd prefer it was about Ellen Ripley.

I’d don’t find Scott’s version to have any charm. Delon was pretty. Damon was earnest and curious. I don’t see what would attract Dickie to Scott’s Tom.

I like the rough looks of Johnny Flynn as Dickie Greenleaf. he looks like he'd have rough dirty sex. I Decided to find some other stuff he's done. He's very good. He does theatre, he's a musician, a credible one, and... he is Sir Bronn of the Blackwater's brother. JErome Flynn from Game of Thrones. I like Johnny Flynn better than his older brother.

Matt Damon Explains Why He Had 'Trouble' Watching 'Ripley' After Playing Role in 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'

Matt Damon is opening up about his role in The Talented Mr. Ripley.

The 53-year-old actor spoke to IndieWire about making the 1999 thriller.

The character of Mr. Ripley was recently revived for a Netflix series starring Andrew Scott, following the 1955 novel. As a result of the success of the series, he reflected whether he would ever be interested in revisiting the character.

“I don’t know,” he said. “You know, I associate the one that we did so much with Anthony Minghella, who’s passed away now, that I don’t know.”

“I even had trouble watching the new one, as beautiful as it was and as great as everybody was. It was hard at first for me to sink back into it just because I have so many great memories, but they’re all wrapped up in these personal feelings about the experience,” he admitted.

It is so boring it put me to sleep. Does it get any better?

Perhaps it's Just Not For You, R217. Nothing wrong with that. (I was largely hypnotized by it from the get-go.)

I thought they made all the wrong choices with this new version. Tom Ripley is supposed to be 20 or so, not 45. The B&W photography, as beautiful and elaborate as it is, does not serve the story which is supposed to take place under the blazing Italian sun one Summer. All wrong, I stopped at episode 1.

OP, Dennis Hopper always scared the shit of me in movies. He was so good.