44 KEY Differences Between RIPLEY (2024) and THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999) 

🍸🍸What was better? RIPLEY (2024) or THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999)?🍸🍸 Check out my other Comparison Videos here: ru-vid.com/group/PLY9KJ1cFVs7gMQ-gKIuedkPVSpTfGQB26

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.

Andrew Scott is amazing as Ripley. His character reminds me of Anthony Perkins portrayal of Norman bates in Psycho.

The black and white cinematography was visually stunning

I often rewatch 99 for that retro summer vibe of them hanging out as friends and listening to jazz

"Tommy, how is the peeping?"-Freddie (Philip Seymour Hoffman) teasing Tom (Matt Damon).

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.

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.

Apples and oranges. I love both but the 2024 is darker.

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 🙂

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.

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.

The new version is better in my opinion. The cinematography was excellent!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 😊

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.

I hear ripley I think alien

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 😄

I have always liked the 1990s version with Matt Damon, et al. But I really like the new version with Andrew Scott (which is a bit reminiscent of the series “You” and the film “Saltburn”). The cinematography in the new version is spectacular. It really takes you back to what life was like back then, before digital technology and the Internet. And I really liked that it was shot in black and white. Making it a series allowed us to really see the characters develop and to appreciate the beautiful sets, clothing, music, art, architecture and Italian landscapes and culture.

I love Andrew Scott. Different stories are great. 👍

Fun fact; Eliot Sumner who plays Freddie is Sting’s kid

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

The winner: Plein Soleil (1960)

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.

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

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.

Wow awesome I didn’t even know thank you for this

really was blown away by the new Ripley. Downright masterpiece

1999 Talented Ripley reigns supreme.

Both are amazing works of art 💯

Excellent recap

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.

The opera scene is one of the finest cinematic moments of the 90's.

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!"

You have to watch "Plein soleil", the french version made in the 60' with Alain Delon, another different version...

Purple Noon with Alen Delon as Ripley was an amazing movie also. The best part was when the body of Dickie got entangle with the boat and was dragged all the way to shore..

1999 one is better, imo

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.

The very slow pacing, and extended scenes of silence threw me off a bit at first. But as it progressed, I feel it worked extremely well. So many shows have too much going on and it doesn't leave way for proper character development, tension building, etc. Also, the sets/settings, all the details down to the hotel rooms, and all, were amazing! The detail really made for a true 1960's Italy vibe. Great show. I haven't seen the movie, and didn't know much going into it, and I'm glad this was the first version I watched! Tom Ripley was really such a creep and sociopath. I was rooting for Marge to have a plan when she met up with him and got drunk etc. Hoping she was angling in some way to try to reveal the truth. But, I'm glad it went as it did! I watched this and then Baby Reindeer, both of which were pleasantly surprising.

Andrew Scott gave by far a superior interpretation of the character.

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.

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. 😂

Andrew Scott was perfection. 2024 wins

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.

Incredible how two (three in fact) versions that respect the source material can be so different and so excellent.

Ripley…love that it was filmed black & white

The cinematography in Ripley is out of this world. Reminds me of the video to Wonderful Life by Black

I love both versions, the 99 one for the sexiness and the 24 one for the darkness. The Netflix version has some of the most extraordinary camera work that I have seen on Netflix and maybe in general, each shot is a piece of art, setting the mood perfectly, all the little details in the shots are important and adds to the storytelling. The aesthetics of the locations, the artwork, architecture are just stunning. I loved that the "killing scenes" had so many complications in them, maybe the killing was easy..but the rest certainly not, it had me on th edge of my seat the whole time. In the Netflix version, we are completely in Riley's mind, but never feel sorry for him. Matt Damons Ripley is more of a tragic character, as I feel he is way more trapped in himself and his sexuality.

Can you do a breakdown of the new ahs delicate part 2 episodes?

90s> but Ripley was good too. I love the photography, it was magnificent.

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.

Absolutely loved the Netflix version of Ripley. The b&w cinematography was awesome. And the pace if the film was wonderful. It really felt cold and brutal.

I loved the black and white version, it gave it a nostalgic feel. The scene with the actress portraying Mina, singing - il cielo in una stanza was stunning. Tom Ripley's gaze was full of love and admiration.

Are you going to review the new AHS season part 2?

John Malkovich played the definitive Ripley in the superb Ridley’s Game.

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..

I enjoyed them both but honestly the videography and more authentic costuming in Ripley far out surpassed The Talented Mr. Ripley

There's also the original Alain Delon 's Plein soleil (purple noon) from 1960

One thing that sticks out for me is the contrasting ways Dickie interacts with the local people. In 1999 film when Tom meets Dickie and Marge they are at a local beach in town surrounded by the locals who are also enjoying the sun. In 2024 series Tom meets Dickie and Marge on a beach but there are no local people there and you get the sense that the locals use a different beach. Also Dickie in the 1999 version goes to local jazz clubs with his friends from town, plays bocci ball with the locals and having sex with local girls. In 2024 version the only locals we see Dickie talking to are those who work for him.

Ripley , Andrew Scott's portrayal was a magnificent piece of acting

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 liked the original better but the remake fleshed out the story more. Both are worth the watch.

Totally and utterly brilliant new version, omg how could they do something so outstanding ....wowwwwww !!!!!

After seeing the new Netflix version i started to watch the Jude Law film for the first time ...not of the other persuasion so could look at Gwyneth Paltrow all day long ....but the older film cannot avoid being or seeming so brutally ( fast ) paced , so superficial and almost cheap ...yes ....once you have seen this brilliant and outstanding new version...omg soooooo good ...aesthetic to a tee but brilliant as a watch ...could not let it go from first to last episode....if it was a book ...unputdownable...but then yes i willingly admit to being a sophisticate ...:)

Really enjoyed both.. Also isnt there an earlierversion?

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!

Thank you, the 99 movie is perhaps my favourite ever.

Tom is very creepy from the first in the Netflix version.

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;

The new version is the business!

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.

Ripley for me. Great acting and beautifully shot. (But it has been a while since I saw "the talented...." )

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.

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.

Meanduring through life without direction is also the title of my memoirs 🎉

It took me a really long time to watch the series because of how slow it moves. But it kept staying with me so I had to keep returning to finish it. Lovely cinematography throughout. Never saw the movie or read the book but I do think that Andrew Scott's portrayal is what kept me going back to finish the series.

You should have read the book by Patricia Highsmith. The Netflix Ripley is very close to the book. The 1999 version is aesthetically pleasing but the new version is the better story.

Jude Law said something quite interesting in an interview recently, as he was praising the series. He became quite nostalgic as he hadn't seen the '99 version in so long, but he said that "Steve Zaillian’s, in many ways, couldn’t be further from Anthony’s... Both versions reflect the director in many ways. One is visual, colourful, and romantic. The other is quite forensic and more sinister... (that) often reflects the person at the helm of the camera."

Ripley is excellent. Didn’t think the original could be improved but it has been.

I really liked this version, but the 90s version was just perfect.

Ridley and Andrew Scott! All day❤️❤️

both tell the same story but cant be more different, RIPLEY is a dark noir thriller with quiet characters and darker moments while the talented is more emotional and has more focus on love and relationships between poeple

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.

BRILLIANT GEORGOUS GREAT SERIES, BETTER THAN THE FLICK, LOVE THE CAST LOVE THE B&W EFFECT AND PHOTOGRAPHY!!!!

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.

“The Talented…” was a phenomenal movie although it really lost me briefly when we were treated to Mat Damon’s early 2000’s “Hollywood” 6-pac abs…something that no unassuming…or for that matter, wealthy…1940’s young man would have ever bothered to try to develop. Totally incongruent with the style of the period and social class.

I was a big fan of the original movie, so was surprised to find another telling I'd heard nothing about until it became available. At first I very much missed the glorious, sunny Italian locale but, that said, found the black and white cinematography breathtaking in the new version: it seemed every frame was worthy of the term "art". I did think Ripley dragged just a bit here and there but that could be my familiarity with the material. So honestly I loved them both, can't choose a favorite!

Jus finished watching Ripley 10 minutes ago . Simply awesome. A masterpiece. And far superior to the 1999 version. No comparison.

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?

A curiosity. There is no place called "Mongibello" in Italy. It is a geographical name but corresponds only to the ancient name of Etna, the volcano of Sicily. Who knows why Patricia Highsmith chose it.