Why Ripley Felt Different 

My goodness! The moving Freddie’s body down the stairs was painful to watch and hear. 😳

It’s all about upper body strength…I’ve said too much…

@@RH1812 You got any workout tips for the upperbody muscles? Asking for a friend....

If you like this, watch "The house that jack built" by Lars Von Trier. Amazing!

Watching Tom take the cab back and forth to deal with Freddie's body was both exhausting and exhilarating. I honestly don't remember the last time any piece of media did this to me

I went back and tried to watch "The Talented....." movie that I thought was so great at the time. It fails to come close to this interpretation. It is unwatchable, in fact.

Argue all you want. It was unwatchable. The remake was boring and I am not blown away by the cinematography; I want a great script and acting. Too much tedious detail that is not inviting but off-putting in boring details. Oh I forgot to keep in mind the cinematography that is just so important. You care about Matt Damon not this guy or the others. Compare Dickie's charm in the movie to the Series. The worst you can say is the movies was too glib but Ripley could have used more of that that. Stair scenes add something but too much .. little payoff.

It's definitely not a remake, I agree

Looked up Zaillian movies and now I know I just don't like him . None of his movies were all that engaging. He's made a lot of big movies with two much excruciating details. Having no music is another poor choice here - then find music that won't lead us rather than bore us with small sound effects. In this movie, easy-dropping and waiting, stall the film.

I saw that too. What an amazing touch that was!!!

what does it mean tho?

@@alikhalil2863 For me, given that the while movie felt like an art piece, every shot so beautiful in a classic way, those droplets were like wake up to reality. Murder is ugly, there's nothing dreamy or artistic about it. IDk if I manage to get my point across. But that red pulled me out of the depth of the story, made it striking how this act interrupts harmony and beauty.

Ooo I didn't know that was the only time

His biggest mistake? The one thing that could have brought him down maybe

The movie was so much better. This has too much detail and is slow but not in a good way, and one likes Matt Damon Ripley so much more than this actor.

​@@oppothumbs1 Yeah... simply dissagree The series are a masterpiecie, the movie is mediocre

@@Garvin285 Did you think the movie was over-the-top or silly? Over the years I have watched it 5 times and I was always totally absorbed. I see that the series did better in ratings han the movie (movie received a 85% on rotten tomato), but I am in total disbelief reading about the love of the series.

@@oppothumbs1 Compared to the series? Yes definitely The series are an indisputable art piece that creates the whole structure and goes into details with subleties, acting and camera work. It's a work of light, time, color (or the lack of it), sound and even language. The movie pales in comparison and while it isn't bad per se, it simply isn't much of any of that. I get the nostalgia but I find it insane to truly believe the movie is a better work of cinematography unless you really just get a headache or are bored with any more ambitious art. Every scene in this series is a good scene, many of them... are great. And with how the cinema in general was last few years, it's really nice to finally (meaning mostly year 2023/2024) see a refreshment. And yes it's slow and have much details because that's exactly how... with good eye and imagination you can create a masterpiece. Infantile art needs to be "mad" "outrageous" or dirty... ambitious art needs to be clean, raw and pedantic at times some films can safely be both but just a story alone doesn't make a good movie and isn't even close to making a great one. Just making the plot interesting is also mediocricity, there is much more to cinema than it is to a book and this series feels like a set of finely captured photos with a smoke of an expensive cigar, a fine drink at a fitting weather outside and a perfectly matched record on a vinyl player. And it shows much more than just the plot... it's an insight into a whole world of it's own. I could eat it with a spoon everynight and by season three I'd probably know some italian, but it's good it ended here and there, because otherwise it wouldn't be so good.

@@Garvin285 OK thanks. My feeling is the delightful witty banter is so much better in the movie. Maybe it's less realistic in that sense; plus I like the faster pace which may have sacrificed detail and realism but the lines are all so compelling and witty; I was very entertained and amused. The charming personalities throughout are all likeable even if evil. Matt, Jude, Philip, Gwyneth, Cate and Jude's dad are people you care about and with well-rounded personalities and flaws. So many unforgettable scenes are in the movie, including the boat party with all the tension and Freddie Miles taunting Tommy with "How's the Peeping Tommy? tommy tommy tommy". Freddie's intro scene, Dickie and Tom tub scene. Im the movie you slowly see Tom's evil but you know it from the start in the video. Tom and Marge and Dickie are pretty bland in the series but playful and engaging in the movie. The movie's music score is great.

I'd watch the hell out of a "How Andrew Scott Perfected Ripley"-video.

@@Arcananine77 Ditto.

Expressive like a sociopath who is dispassionate about everything. Not an easy balance to strike

To my knowledge, in the novels Ripley never overtly expresses any kind of queer identity or affection for Dickie - but this is Patricia Highsmith we're talking about so it's safe to assume the subtext is there. I think the two Ripleys of the movie and miniseries respectively represent ends of a spectrum - Damon's Ripley being impulsive, emotional, and chaotic, whereas Scott's Ripley is devoid of feelings except those of resentment and envy, and filled instead with machinations. Personally I find the choice to age him up and make him more canny and world-weary is extremely evocative of our current times, whereas in the Minghella film it's very representative of the much different attitude that pervaded the 90s.

We live in different times...

Minghella actually changed a lot from the book. Peter Smith-Kingsley is mentioned once or twice in the book as a friend Tom makes in Venice but nothing past that. Meredith Logue just straight up isn’t in the book from my memory. Also the person who commented above that queer desire isn’t apparent in the book isn’t quite right. Tom out and out claims to like men and women to his New York friends: “I can’t make up my mind whether I like men or women, so I’m thinking of giving them both up”. This claim is backed up by the very apparent lust he has for Dickie, which we see even after he’s decided to kill him on the boat, “he could have hit Dickie, sprung on him, or kissed him”. He also has a wife in the later books who he is also sexually attracted to, although arguably not in love with her

I would also like to say that Minghella’s Ripley is not the exact same character as the books and does not intend to be. I’ve seen quotes from Minghella saying that he wanted to create a more sympathetic character than the one Patricia Highsmith wrote, and that changes a lot the character intentions, for better or for worse (better in my opinion). Tom isn’t explicitly shown to be a criminal/scammer at the start of the movie, he’s just quite a talented and skilled liar. He is a lot less of a cold blooded killer too, as the situation with Dickie is more of a crime of passion. I would argue Minghellas version absolutely had the capacity to love- both Dickie and Peter- while Highsmith’s and the 2024 Ripley do not

@@dorkbaitart I found Scott's Ripley very expressive for the fact that he was trying to cover himself from the crime of murder by appearing so distant & calm & measured. He was a puzzle that the police could not completely finish.

Scott's ability to learn to speak Italian so lovely.

@@umbertoaguiar This show is yet another adaptation of a book, the same way all the previous movies were. The 1999 took A LOT of liberties in crafting characters and stories that are very different and sometimes not even part of the original book. This show follows the book plot more closely but chose to make the characters older and that entails changes, too. Also, literally all the criticism I saw as soon as it came out was about how this negatively compares to the 1999 movie, even in published film reviews. So no, I am not mistaken. You are free to your opinion, though.

@@umbertoaguiar You chose to not accept my comment from a few weeks ago (when most of the criticism I saw was about comparing this to the TTMR film) and argue with it. All adaptations differ from the original source, the 1999 film is widely different, much more so than this. You think the actors were miscast, fine, your prerrogative, but YOU sought to fight in my comment, YOU are the one not accepting other views. Also, personages is not a word. Have a good day.

Exactly right. Although Malkovich made a great Ripley in Ripley's Game.

Ripley is sooo much better. Another ball park completely

@@Alerrrt Shogun is good but not nearly this good.

A must!

Thank you and enjoy!

​@@JustanObservationHello, can you also take a look into the purple noon 1960, which was the original mr. Ripley starribg Alain Delon

Yes. Scott's eyes were everything. They are dark & mysterious & expressive to a degree that is mesmerizes the viewer.

Hitchcock directed Highsmith's _Strangers on a Train_ rather than any of the Ripley books.

A sociopath does not live in color.

With one tiny splotch of red.

Gorgeous work and how the shadows represented more due to the Caravaggio nod.

I can agree with that. But episodes 3-6 are masterpieces

It was pretty faithful to the book. I think Highsmith wanted to show what a large role luck played in getting away with a crime. Ripley made some serious blunders but also caught some lucky breaks that allowed him to slip away.

Absolutely right. Zaillian didn't start this project by reading through the movie script several times.

Andrew Scott made it believable.

@@g.flesch9731 No he didn't make it believable. He is the worst Ripley that ever appeared on screen. He is worse than the cowboy Dennis Hopper. Tom, in both Alain Delon (25) and Matt Damon (29) films is charming, funny, subservient and apparently harmless. They are the kind of young friend that the fun loving, spoiled Richard would like to have around him in a paradisiacal village with a beach. The best way to see how weak and farcical is Scott's interpretation of Ripley is to watch Alain Delon in "Plein Soleil" 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" But Scott's Ripley is a solitary psychopath right from the beginning. It's very different to the book and two films. He looks miserable and too serious all the time. Who would like to have him around? He looks like one of those serial killers in some Scandinavian noir series. I guess this adoration for the miscast actor is caused by a numbness created by too much viewing of Scandinavian noir and other psychopaths in modern TV. Numbed people need an obvious villain. The Netflix series is so different to the book ( despite many details from the book being present only in the series) and the two better films that I even think it's some sort of plagiarism to call this series "Ripley".

Me too. But I worry we won’t get one as it apparently flopped by Netflix viewership standards

I watched both… but the newer one would be better going in cold I reckon

I was in the same conomdrum. Should I watch the 90's version or the tv series? I decided for the latter and WOW... best series ive seen in a while, I highly doubt that the 90's movie gets to this heights of perfection in every department, acting, writing, directing, cinematography, editing... and the list goes on and on. An instant classic.

Read the book first! Makes the movies so much better.

The film is a really good movie. I had to pull up the Wikipedia entry to recall elements of the plot. The miniseries is exceptional, mesmerising and unforgettable.

If you're only going to watch one, definitely go for the series. If you're going to watch both, start with the 1999 movie so you can enjoy it for what it is before watching the far superior series.

They are two different interpretations. Damon's character had explicit love or infatuation with Greenleaf. He cries over Dickie's body. But Scott's Ripley isn't motivated by attraction, it's pure greed, envy and vengeful thieving. Different motivations create different characters.

And the sound is amazing