🍸🍸What was better? RIPLEY (2024) or THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999)?🍸🍸 Check out my other Comparison Videos here: kzread.info/head/PLY9KJ1cFVs7gMQ-gKIuedkPVSpTfGQB26

@Hae3ro

2 ай бұрын

Havent seen the new one jet, but 1999 looks more lively

@ethelnagelberg1654

2 ай бұрын

99 was flashy, trashy Hollywood. 24 was much more European-subtle, brooding- a completely downplayed film noir…

@reginaphalange9417

2 ай бұрын

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.

@johnray7261

2 ай бұрын

2024 …beautifully filmed in black and white …everything is more real …Italian buildings in decay …the pace is slower but that brings a real tension to the drama …feels less fake than the original….I watched it in one sitting was so into it …great film and so different which is amazing

@MichaelDJ68

2 ай бұрын

It would have been interesting if you also compared PURPLE NOON, though that version is more suggested by the novel and not as closely followed.

In my view both versions are good and worth watching several times… but I love the pace, the b&w imagery, the photography and the extraordinary portrayal by Scott of Ripley. Scott is amazingly restrained… you can see the machinations of his thinking in the silence and suspense, underplayed with vast stretches of disturbing silence. I particularly liked the extraordinary detail of how he manages the death of Freddie and the suspense of the clear up… particularly the cat! Everyone in Ripley looks at Tom with suspicion, including the cat.

@dinyahome

2 ай бұрын

The decision to shoot in B & W for the 2024 is brilliant. Somehow it made everything became more dramatic on screen!

@mistersmith1883

Ай бұрын

I thought why would he kill him with the apt door open. Freddie screams before fighting for his life one last time and I'm thinking there's no way the nosy land lady didn't hear that. The apartment elevator breaking (right after it gets fixed) while carrying a dead body late at night has been in so many movies eg unfaithful w Richard Gere.

@MeetLeAnne

Ай бұрын

Great mini review & I completely agree. In the film, Tom is much more reluctant when he kills both Dickie & Freddie, and he even weeps as he prepares to kill his lover….but Scott’s performance, like the cigarettes smoked in the series, is a slow burn, tinged with nuanced brilliance. I absolutely LOVED the limited series, and I hope Andrew Scott is nominated for many acting awards.

The black and white cinematography was visually stunning

@cassandra2872

2 ай бұрын

The photography was stunning. The camera studies each shot,giving the viewer a moment to absorb the scene..a gallery within a gallery. I will revisit this on mute. Lots of grist for thought...a beautiful and mean piece. Scott's character gave me the creeps. Lots like that walking around.

@umbertoaguiar

4 күн бұрын

@@cassandra2872 Interesting. I am going to do the same and watch the film on mute. But I will listen to classical music from the time of Caravaggio because of the idea of light even if there is no Caravaggio in the book. And that Scott's Tom give you and so many other posters the creeps is a clear indication of how distant he is from the Tom Ripley in the book and the two films. It's a nonsensical interpretation.

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

@mariam501

Ай бұрын

Yes! Tom is a bit like Norman in all those quiet moments. Good analogy!

@Brentstarga

Ай бұрын

Yessss! I said the same thing!!

@QuiteContrary14

Ай бұрын

Totally!

@susanam.826

28 күн бұрын

I think he really nailed the duality between his innocent, childlike fascination with beauty and the world and his cold-blooded, murderous nature.

@umbertoaguiar

7 күн бұрын

It's ironic to see many posters comparing Andrew Scott with Anthony Perkins thinking they are praising Scott's nonsensical, mediocre performance of Tom Ripley when they are doing the opposite without being aware of it. That Scott's Tom reminds people of "Psycho" is a clear indication of how different he is from the Tom in the book and two films.I even think it's some sort of plagiarism to call this series "Ripley". To watch Alain Delon in the really original film (Not Matt Damon's as so many think. It's depressing) is the best way to see how distant Tom Ripley is from "Psycho's main personage and Scott's interpretation. Patricia Highsmith was asked in a recorded conversation at the British Library why she had decided to write sequels to "The Talented Mr. Ripley" which was originally supposed to be a one off book. She replied ""Maybe, in a curious way, The French film affected me in a positive way because Alain Delon did such a good job … the right age ….One hundred percent correct"

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

@lunacascade1125

2 ай бұрын

I like jazz but My Funny Valentine was on repeat too many times!

@flowerlila21248

26 күн бұрын

@@lunacascade1125 - it's not such a thing as too many for a Funny Valentine😜

You did a fantastic job of comparing and contrasting the two works. "The Talented Mr. Ripley" is probably my favorite film of all time. Such perfection in every way. I've watched it more times than I'd care to admit. I actually binge watched the entire "Ripley" and at first, I kind of felt it was moving at a glacial pace. But soon it became pretty obvious that as a modern Film Noir, it's a magnificent work of art. Visually stunning. there's an interesting piece in the current Vanity Fair where the director and the cinematographer are discussing the various shots/setups. So I'd have to say that having sat through the entire 8 hours, I did finally come around and to greatly admire all aspects of this new Ripley.

The 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.

@johnbaylin6766

2 ай бұрын

totally agree with you!!

@sb5224

2 ай бұрын

Minghella's film has been my all time favorite. And I am surprised how much more I like this new rendition. I love this new take on the novel. Much more closer to real life. Dickie Greenleaf in this rendition is what I have known such people to be like - Plain and unimpressive.

@jstokes

2 ай бұрын

@@sb5224 Yes, very true.

@katrinad2687

2 ай бұрын

Very well said

@Lauren-zh8xz

Ай бұрын

Well said!

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

@johnbaylin6766

2 ай бұрын

Did this place come furnished? Horrible isn't it! Doesn't look like Dickie at all. In fact the only thing that looks like Dickie is you. Have you done something with your hair???

@LightSourceTemple

2 ай бұрын

irreplaceable Philip Seymour Hoffman

@rossellabor

2 ай бұрын

While I very much enjoyed Seymour Hoffman performance, I really appreciated the cold, implacable, elegant arrogance of Eliot Sumner. So well played

@MultiSUPERLATIVO

Ай бұрын

@elenazaslavsky5268 When Freddie confrontated Ripley at the appartment, in the 1999 version, that was the scene!

@matteg490

17 күн бұрын

That alone almost makes the movie better than the series. I guess some think the movie has some cheap flash about it and not enough euro-cinema, but I can't imagine anyone rewatching the series even once if they liked the movie. A great movie for a pretty lady.

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

@MeatCatCheesyBlaster

Ай бұрын

I don't know how you can get darker than him strangling his lover at the end of the 99 one

@Owenwithee

Ай бұрын

@@MeatCatCheesyBlaster Have you seen the new one? Andrew Scott plays it darker and creepier regardless of the ending.

@akshay5976

Ай бұрын

@@Owenwithee nah.. the '99 one was much darker

@Garvin285

25 күн бұрын

​@@akshay5976 Yea... sorry, I simply dissagree.

@alanadaniel755

17 күн бұрын

Matt Damon was scary in that still.

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.

@johnbaylin6766

2 ай бұрын

Neither did I. Hoffman was magnificent. Especially his facial gestures. Apparently the current Freddy is Nepo Baby Son of Sting.

@nycgweed

2 ай бұрын

Is the actor a man or a woman , I can’t tell

@Lilianamarie999

2 ай бұрын

@@nycgweedGoogle it

@johnbaylin6766

2 ай бұрын

Apparently the actor is indeed a woman. In real life the daughter of Sting.

@tekkieman

2 ай бұрын

@@nycgweedDEI casting.

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!

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.

@jstokes

2 ай бұрын

I agree and I enjoyed reading your comment!

@flaminguo

2 ай бұрын

@@jstokes ❤️ the series really felt like a love letter to old noir and European films. Never thought I’ve seen something like this from netflix i pray that they give us a second season, but even if they don’t this has cemented its place

@jstokes

2 ай бұрын

@@flaminguo I also saw art in every frame in the series, as you so eloquently described. The series is essential viewing for film students.

@flaminguo

2 ай бұрын

@@jstokes we really are blessed to get 8 hours of this type of masterclass work of art ❤️

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.

@juliajulie8500

2 ай бұрын

The difference is Alain Delon was a beauty of an angel. You would never believe his did such horrible things. Andrew's Tom is old and creepy, he lacks the charm to play the character.

@reginaphalange9417

2 ай бұрын

@@juliajulie8500 you're right, it was less obvious from the start

@jugurthasyphax6341

2 ай бұрын

Andrew Scott portrayal is closer to Delon's, yes. But probably even closer to John Malkovitch in Ripley's Game as a cold, calculating (though not entirely unfeeling) sociopath rather than a spurned lover who became a criminal through chance and circumstances. Hence the cameo.

@umbertoaguiar

9 күн бұрын

@@jugurthasyphax6341 Andrew Scott's portrayal is very different to Alain Delon's portrayal . Scott looks miserable and too serious all the time. He looks like one of those serial killers in Scandinavian series. Alain Delon looks happy and is always smiling and being funny. He is closer to the book. Scott's interpretation is nonsensical and the series is so different to the book and the two films that I even think it's some sort of plagiarism to call the series "Ripley".

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.

@didyouseetheword5

Ай бұрын

I thought the disguise scene worked because Ripley is constantly using disguises in the other novels in the Ripliad--they made what would have been an unbelievable thing (on film) work: that Ravini would not recognize Tom as Dickie...

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.

@nuschlerclark895

2 ай бұрын

Wait…Tom Ripley was the OPPOSITE of being “likable and appealing!” He was a full on sociopath in the book! Damon was horribly miscast. Andrew Scott is a stage actor who with subtlety showed the depth of his psychopathy! You obviously didn’t understand the plot or characters.

@remsan03

2 ай бұрын

@@nuschlerclark895 yawn... all I hear was "blah blah blah". Go talk to someone who cares, honey.

@knightfly28

2 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@nuschlerclark895absolutely not. Matt Damon was perfectly cast.

@remsan03

Ай бұрын

To anyone else reading my first comment - not the condescending replier: I'm judging the movie and the show on their own accords. Without considering how faithful the portrayal to the book. When I say Matt Damon's Ripley is more appealing and likeable, it was compared to Andrew Scott's. It doesn't mean that I wanted to be friends with Tom Ripley and have tea with him. I recognize that Andrew Scott may be a good actor, but in my opinion, this is not his best. But not just Scott, every lead actor here is stiff: Flynn, Fanning, and Sumner, included. Matt Damon as an actor has range. He did extraordinarily well on dramatic role, or heroic, or even comedy. At 8 hours, this series only covers the same plot as the 2 hour movie. The movie as better pacing. The disguising scene with just a bad wig and bad lighting is stupid, frankly. But hey, just my opinion.

@levadamusic

Ай бұрын

But that's not Ripley at all. Ripley is colder, the 2024 was more realistic, I disagree about the pace, we get to know the character much more intimately, the crimes have much more weight. And 1999 has the Hollywood rhythm, people are more used to it but that doesn't mean it's the only possible rhythm to tell the story. The author had a reason to write Ripley without Damon's goofy charm, Andrew perfomace fits the theme of the story better than Damon.

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.

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.

@laurabrown8161

2 ай бұрын

absolutely. that inspector is fastidious so him not inquiring about his money, being fooled by the disguise, not noticing the similar voice AND never asking for a photo of Greenleaf all irked me. But hey, I’m willing to surrender disbelief cuz it was an incredible series

@eka77777

2 ай бұрын

​@@laurabrown8161 Me too 😂

@sophiaandre139

2 ай бұрын

I couldn't agree more😂

@thoms3870

2 ай бұрын

And he made no effort to change personality characteristics!

@jasonpender2147

2 ай бұрын

Yes and the fact that the inspector was looking for dickie, who was on the run. Are we expected to believe that no pics of dickie/tom would not be circulating all around the world, pretty dumb, good show all the same.

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 🙂

@jstokes

2 ай бұрын

Excellent comment and analysis.

@umbertoaguiar

11 күн бұрын

"Ripley as portrayed in this series is much closer to how I read him in the novels ". Which edition did you read? I am asking this because "The Talented Mr. Ripley" I am reading from Everyman's Library is very different from the book you read. It's a curious phenomenon as I thought all editions would have the same words but yours obviously doesn't. You didn't like "Plein Soleil"? Well, Patricia Highsmith did. This is from a recorded conversation at the British Library. When asked why she decided to write a sequel to "The Talented Mr. Ripley" which had been originally written as a one off story she replied : " Maybe, in a curious way, the French film affected me in a positive way because Alain Delon did such a good job … the right age ….One hundred percent correct" You say "Ripley as portrayed in this series is much closer to how I read him in the novels - a dispassionate, obsessive and ruthless imposter and forger" Again, who is the publisher of your book? Because in the book I have here this is the "dispassionate, ruthless imposter... who has zero empathy for others and never engages in guilt." These are from "my edition" of the book: "Tom wanted to leave. But he hated to leave the man sitting alone with his fresh drink". " ...He wasn't stealing money from anybody.Before he went to Europe, he thought, he'd destroy the cheques..." "...Yet he had a feeling of guilt. When he had said to Ms. Greenleaf just now . I will do everything I can...Well, he meant it. He wasn't trying to fool anybody..." You also say "I would wager that smacking someone in the head with an ashtray doesn't even raise his blood pressure." 'Freddie knocked at the door...He tried to think just for two seconds more... He couldn't think..." Then after the murder which would not even raise his blood pressure according to you: "Tom let his eyes rest absently on Freddie's limp, messy face for a moment, and his stomach contracted sickeningly and he quickly looked away...His head had begun ringing as if he were going to faint". You like this mediocre Netflix series. Good for you. But please don't use the book to justify your weak arguments, a view of Patricia Highsmith which seems to be mixed up with watching too many Scandinavian noir series. P.S. Please don't forget to let me know which edition of the novel you read. I am curious about this alternative version of Patricia Highsmith's story that you read.

@bowint400

8 күн бұрын

You seem so angry, Umberto? My review was just a personal opinion. I wasn't trying to win a Pulitzer and never tried for any "strength of argument," much less claim to truth. So sorry that my uneducated opinion is different from yours, and that I read the wrong edition (no idea which one), and that liking such a "mediocre" series has offended your delicate sensibilities to such a degree. By the way, I am not a fan of Scandinavian noir. Way too depressing for my taste 🙂

@umbertoaguiar

7 күн бұрын

​@@bowint400 I am not angry. I am depressed. The adoration for a nonsensical, essentially dishonest and mediocre interpretation of a personage clearly defined in a book is one of the many indications of a slowly vanishing world of good cinema and literature and a more and more dumbed down world. It has a direct effect on my life. I am in a few days of idleness for private reasons so I read many reviews and comments about "Ripley". Far too many for my own good. I reacted to them but quite frankly I would just delete everything if I had the option to see all my comments in a single place as it is in the WSJ for example. What difference do comments on KZread make? Your comment is just not truthful. You can't change a book the way you did and call it your opinion. I only replied to it because of your reference to Patricia Highsmith's books . I was being sarcastic about the edition but you didn't get it. To say that Andrew Scott's interpretation of Ripley is closer to the book is so far away from the factual truth that I even wondered if you did read the book. It is not just my opinion when I say that Andrew Scott's Tom is very different from the Tom in the book. We can begin with the big age difference. Tom is 25 in the book. Alain Delon was 25 at the time of his film. Matt Damon was 29. Scott at 47 could be their father. And please don't tell me that Scott's is an aged, more mature Tom. He is supposed to be 25 in the series. Dickie's mother asks Tom: "Did you go to college here (NY) ?" He lies and says Princeton. Her reply : Your parents must be very proud of you!" Now who would say that to an "aged", "mature" Tom in his forties? She said that to a personage who was supposed to be 25 as he is in the book! It's pretty obvious. "your parents must be very proud of you! " I posted excerpts from the book in my first reply to you which clearly show how distant Andrew Scott's Tom is from the Tom in the book. Beginning with the age. But the age is the least of it. A poster, LondonPride25 if I remember right, described Tom Ripley very well. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Excellent description. Andrew Scott is just the wolf and a bad one at that because of his constant miserable looking. Moreover, the very author of the book considered Alain Delon to be an excellent Tom Ripley. Actually, the French film was the reason why Patricia Highsmith decided to write sequels. Your Tom Ripley who is "obsessive dispassionate, ruthless imposter and forger.... survive in the harsh environment of a society in which he has no place" doesn't exist apart from the "obsessive". He is an imposter and forger all right but not a ruthless one. And he is definitely not dispassionate. Quite the opposite. I even double checked in the dictionary to make sure I wasn't being unfair: "dispassionate not affected by personal or emotional involvement' Not affected? He is jealous of Marge as so many passages of the book show. And this is him in New York before his travel "..Suddenly he leaned forward and planted a firm, brotherly kiss on the ivory cheek. I'll miss you, Cleo..." Actually, the very reason for murdering Dickie was Tom's personal, emotional involvement with him. This is from the book : "You were supposed to see the soul through the eyes, to see love through the eyes...and in Dickie's eyes Tom saw nothing more now than...Tom felt a painful wretch in his breast, and he covered his face with his hands. It was as if Dickie had been suddenly snatched away from him. They were not friends" Tom thought he and Dickie were going to be living together as many passages of the book show: "By the time his money ran out, Tom thought, Dickie would probably be so fond of him and so used to him that he would take it for granted they would go on living together.He and Dickie could easily live on Dickie's five hundred a month income" It was only when he realised that Dickie was going to get rid of him that he decided to kill Ritchie. The transition for affection to hate is clearly described in the book when they are on the train to San Remo where Tom will kill Ritchie. As for not having a place in the society: Tom Ripley did have jobs and actually worked for the Internal Revenue office, for example, just weeks before the start of the story. And he wasn't any near as solitary as the wolf only Andrew Scott. He did have friends in NY. He wouldn't stay long in a job and considered that a problem. These are his thoughts in the ship to Europe: "He was versatile and the world was wide! He swore to himself he would stick to a job once he got it." A friendly suggestion: Read the book again.📖🙂🙃

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 😊

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.

@paridoesupcycling

2 ай бұрын

all the casts are perfect except Freddie

@terri6854

2 ай бұрын

Your comment sounds like the studio marketing department wrote it.

@georgesaguna

2 ай бұрын

@@terri6854 it sound like it but it’s hearth felt as it blew me away.

@8mysteryjo

Ай бұрын

I think the original film with entire cast: Hoffman, Jude Law, Paltrow, Etc. was a masterpiece. Netflix version isn’t even comparable on any level IMO.

@laurawilson8881

Ай бұрын

I couldn't agree less. It dragged on and on, there was all build up, no payoff. Plus it didn't make sense! The whole business of the private detective tracking down Ripley, yet Ripley was supposed to be a Princeton grad. Ripley was too obviously a con artist. Just messy plotting.

I love Andrew Scott. Different stories are great. 👍

I hear ripley I think alien

@damianstarks3338

2 ай бұрын

Lol I think the same thing too

The winner: Plein Soleil (1960)

@halukkilic3171

2 ай бұрын

No.

@mucro849

2 ай бұрын

Alain Delon was great, but the movie has a disappointing ending.

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.

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

@wjglll340

2 ай бұрын

Sting's daughter who is pretending to be something else.

@mypdshp9309

2 ай бұрын

@@wjglll340 alright bigot

@genevievebe303

2 ай бұрын

@@wjglll340 Sting’s kid because they are non-binary

@wjglll340

2 ай бұрын

@@genevievebe303 That's bs.

@laurabrown8161

2 ай бұрын

excellent!! mmmmm their gender identity & expression plays brilliantly for that role.

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 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 😄

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!

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.

@sb5224

2 ай бұрын

Minghella's film has been my all time favorite. And I am surprised how much more I like this new rendition. I love this new take on the novel. Much more closer to real life. Dickie Greenleaf and Marj in this rendition are exactly what I have known such people to be like - Plain and unimpressive.

@shivangkaushik3871

2 ай бұрын

That's a wierd take. How does the make andrew's ripley one dimensional. It's a totally different version of ripley. I believe people expected it to be like the movie but long. Andrew's ripley had actual problems whereas damon kills dickie in heat of the moment more or less. Andrew's ripley never once tries to draw empathy for him. It's very much a sociopathic take and done very well. Andrew's ripley felt a bit more unexpected than damon's. Also I loved the summer italy vibes and music in the movie. But ofc the show being b&w tells you it's not gonna be sunny the whole movie lol

@jugurthasyphax6341

2 ай бұрын

They really tried to go for the realism. It's almost a commentary on the way the 1999 movie, the books (and ultimately us) glamorized what is at the end of the day a sociopathic con man. If you study the life and personality of people who do this in real life : Christophe Rocancourt, Franck Abagnale, or more recently Anna Delvey they're much closer to this. They aren't much to write about as human beings. Even when they have charm, it's superficial and phony. Our popular culture ridiculously glamorize people like that as suave, sophisticated Robin Hoods when everything about the way they behave, talk and think is rehearsed, derivative, goal-oriented and ultimately mediocre. They're snakes mistaken as lions.

@jugurthasyphax6341

2 ай бұрын

Really the more I think about the 1999 movie, while I still love it, the more I resent it for basically making Tom an anti-hero and almost like a victim. Compare the murder scene. In the movie, it's basically a crime of passion that turns into self-defense with the way Dickie goes out of his ways to verbally, then physically abuse Tom. It removes any moral responsibility from Tom who looks like a victim of, instead of an exploiter of circumstances. Andrew Scott's Tom deliberately murders Dickie from behind after the latter tried to end things on civil terms. It restores Tom's agency and responsibility when choosing a life of crime. The idea of being a life-long con man by accident is just preposterous.

@sb5224

2 ай бұрын

@@jugurthasyphax6341 That’s a really great point. Ripley also avoids presenting Marg’s character as this hopeless romantic and takes a pragmatic approach on her relationship with Dickie.

Purple Noon (1960) is the best adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel.

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 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.

@umbertoaguiar

11 күн бұрын

Why people keep saying things such as the Netflix series is a "pretty accurate version of the book" when it isn't? It puzzles me . They never read the book and are dishonest about it just for the sake of the argument? They write whatever pops in their heads? They adore the series so much that want to believe that everything about it is perfect? What is it? Examples of the 'pretty accurate" series: This is the description of Freddie Miles in the book: "...a young man with red hair and a loud sports shirt...He was also overweight". Any similarity with the skinny actress wearing stylish 21st century dark clothes in the Netflix series? More from the book: “He could feel the belligerence growing in Freddie Miles as surely as if his huge body were generating a heat that he could feel across the room. Freddie was the kind of ox who might beat up somebody he thought was a pansy" Can anyone imagine Sting’s daughter as an “ox’ with a “huge body” and able to beat up a “pansy”? Ah, the irony! Another striking difference is the sensuality present in the book and even more in the two films but absent in the antiseptic Netflix series where Dickie and Marge act like brother and sister. There are many more examples of crucial differences between the book and the Netflix series especially the ones concerning the personages: There is no detective in New York in the book unlike the series Tom is not a solitary , friendless man in the book unlike the series Tom is 25 in book but it's played by a 47 year old actor who looks his age Tom never tried to cash the cheques unlike the series Tom wasn't living alone in New York in the book unlike the series Tom wasn't an all time crook and worked for the IRS (!!!) just before the story starts in the book unlike the series Freddie Miles is a big man with bad taste in clothes unlike the series Dickie wasn't any near as rich in the book as he was in the series There is no parallels with Caravaggio in the book unlike the series Tom is funny, charming and subservient in the book unlike the series where the nonsensical Tom created by Andrew Scott looks miserable or sombre all the time. Tom flew to Paris and spent about a week in France after murdering Dickie unlike the series A photo of Dickie Greenleaf's face is printed in Italian magazines unlike the series The American detective in Italy is a short white guy of Irish descent who can read Italian, unlike the series. The personage played by Malkovich doesn't exist in the book Again, what is wrong with these people who keep saying the Netflix series is faithful to the book or is close to the book or is a "pretty accurate" version ?

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.

@SusanaXpeace2u

2 ай бұрын

Same, I enjoyed both, so different, it makes me feel I need to read the book 😂

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.

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

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

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

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.

Excellent recap

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

really was blown away by the new Ripley. Downright masterpiece

Both are amazing works of art 💯

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

They're both fantastic in their own way. I do love the cinematography from the series though, and have rewatched it just for that. Tons to learn from the framing, lighting and length of each take.

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.

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

@bruceglover7971

Ай бұрын

Agreed ! The Pace of the 2024 version is what I appreciated , 8 episodes allowed more depth IMO . Scott was superb . His brazen portrayal was one I identified with.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

This would have been so much better if you had also considered Purple Noon.

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

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.

@johnbaylin6766

2 ай бұрын

Apparently Sting's son is actually his da ughter. Go figure.

@michaelconnor5378

2 ай бұрын

@@johnbaylin6766I always thought that although Ripley is a vicious conman, he is no worse than Fred or Dickie but in a different way. Fred and Dickie would live an idle, life of luxury where they exploit the commoners who serve them. Tom is a struggling nobody who is thrown into this role and plays it out. He had no choice but to kill Dickie. Then he takes his role as a rich boy with the luxurious life. What a commentary on the classes. Tom becomes that which he despises.

@margeryguest3920

2 ай бұрын

I think Flynn's character makes perfect sense. Dickie thinks himself an artist because he is born rich and doesn't like work, but wants to believe he is bigger than that.

@umbertoaguiar

11 күн бұрын

Thanks for making me laugh with "Sting's son should stick to music "(actually , she is Sting's daughter) I am doing nothing these last two days so decided to go through KZread views on "Ripley". I think yours is the best comment I've read together with another comment which is as matter of fact and interesting as yours. You forgot Marge. The one in the antiseptic Netflix series is too bland. Dickie and Marge act like brother and sister in "Ripley" . I guess it's not her fault. It's the director's and Netflix's fault. There is a lot of sensuality in both films as it would be expected from young people at the height of their sexuality and living in a paradisiacal beach but the intimacy and sensuality are absent from the tamed Netflix series. I think the best Marge, the closer to the book is Marie Laforêt who plays Marge in the French film. But I don't think Italy could be compared to Russia. The climate is too different to begin with. So are the people. And "Ripley" wasn't filmed in b&w as most think.It was shot with colour. They removed the colour in the editing but Netflix does have a copy in colour as required in their contract with the director. I guess they will release the colour copy after milking the b&w for long enough. See here how Seymour Hoffman is so close to Freddie in the book and how Sting's daughter is so distant from it: This is the description of Freddie Miles in the book: "...a young man with red hair and a loud sports shirt...He was also overweight". Any similarity with the skinny actress wearing stylish 21st century dark clothes in the Netflix series? More from the book: “He could feel the belligerence growing in Freddie Miles as surely as if his huge body were generating a heat that he could feel across the room. Freddie was the kind of ox who might beat up somebody he thought was a pansy" Can anyone imagine Sting’s daughter as an “ox’ with a “huge body” and able to beat up a “pansy”? Ah, the irony!

You Forget an adaptation of Highsmith's novel : "Plein soleil" de René Clément (1960) with Alain Delon.

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!"

1999 one is better, imo

@monaghanboy711

2 ай бұрын

Watch the 1960 one with Alain Delon.

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.

1999 Talented Ripley reigns supreme.

@patty1247

2 ай бұрын

Yes, as much as I love Andrew Scott the movie as a whole is much better than the series. And Matt Damon had a very good take on the character.

@MrAarobinson89

2 ай бұрын

The movie has a charm to it while the show felt rather flat and lifeless. Andrew Scott nailed it as Ripley but all the other characters felt like filler.

@ParisLawLess

2 ай бұрын

That's racist

@heartt4444

2 ай бұрын

No

@libelinhaa2079

2 ай бұрын

​@@ParisLawLesswhy because the new version is black and white? 😂😂😂

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

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

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

Really enjoyed both.. Also isnt there an earlierversion?

@momof3plusdsg

2 ай бұрын

Plein Soleil from 1960 that others have mentioned. I haven't seen any of the versions yet. I enjoy both Matt Damon's and Andrew Scott's acting even though they're very different and I think I'll like the atmosphere of the new adaptation but I doubt I'll prefer one over the other. Edit: someone else mentioned the original 1960 movie being based on a book from 1955 by an author named Patricia Highsmith. Typical of me, there's a greater chance that I'll get around to reading the book (if it's available as an e-book) than watching any film or series adaptation.

@user-mq2pf4rm4l

2 ай бұрын

@@momof3plusdsg thanks for the info. Want to watch all 3 again.

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.

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

What about the sequel with John Malkovich “Ripley’s Game”? And now John is in this version.

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

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.

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

Ripley…love that it was filmed black & white

@umbertoaguiar

11 күн бұрын

Don't love so much. It was filmed with colour. They removed the colour in the editing. Netflix does have a version in colour as required in their contract with the director. They might release it after they had milked the B&W long enough.

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

I watched the Netflix version and liked it, but it made me curious to see the Matt Damon version. Wow! Loved it! The Netflix version lacked the glamous, gorgeous, summer in Italy fantasy life that Tom so much wanted to be a part of. Not sure why... maybe it was the b&w, but the Netflix version's vibe was just too somber for me. Fascinating story, but I've got to go with 1999 version! Plus , the cast was phenomenal!

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

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.

The cinematography was hypnotic.

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

Malkovich also played Ripley in 2002's Ripley's Game

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.

Thanks, I loved the Talented Mr Ripley, but the new series is in a class of its own...

Correction: Herbert Greenleaf is played by James Rebhorn, not Philip Baker Hall.

The new version is the business!

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!

The series is a work of art.

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

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

I prefer the French Veriosion, Plein Soleil (Purle Noon) with Alain Delon as Tom.

Ridley and Andrew Scott! All day❤️❤️

I would also mention an older version of this story, starring French actor Alain Delon, called "Purple Noon". It is a very good version, imho. Its final scene is my favourite!

I watched the Netflix version with my grandmother after it came out. Unlike me, she’s seen the movie version. We both loved the Netflix version and I asked her which she liked better and she said that she liked the Netflix version much better.

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."

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

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 ...:)

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.

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

Riply (2024) is just an artistic masterpiece. Every scene is magnificently photographically crafted. Details are engraved into the frames. Italian music, real Atrani landscapes, real social lifestyle and how perfectly the characters are logically made are just awesome. It's too bad that the two movies have the same main plot, apart from the details put into the 2024 version. Coz, it's possible that, once you see the 1999 movies it's difficult to enjoy the 2024 version to the fullest. I was lucky enough that I ain't know about the 1999 version at first and I watched it later to convince one of my friends to watch the 2024 version.

I have been a huge fan of TTMR since watching the Matt Damon version as a child- and have watched it probably 30 times since then. It's a fascinating movie. I had no idea that this series was even a thing until last night when I noticed it as a new addition to Netflix (Australia). I'm only about half way in so far - but I have to say, I find it pretty intriguing. I've never read the books, so I'm unsure which movie rendition is more true to the intended tone of the book(s). I will say that I definitely, without a doubt, prefer Tom and Dickie in the older version, from both the way they look and the way they act (I get that this is meant to be set in the 40s, but why do 25 year old Tom and Dickie look like 40 year old men.. surely we didn't age THAT much quicker back then). In the older movie, Tom is sort of subtly creepy to begin with - whereas this series version makes his blatantly creepy and bizarre immediately- which makes you question why Dickie would even want him around. Apart from that, the music of the movie is probably superior (in my opinion). Fascinating so far though. Will post an update. If you enjoyed and are fascinated by the original, you'll definitely appreciate this iteration, providing you go in knowing that the tone is different.

@umbertoaguiar

11 күн бұрын

Yours is the very important question that nobody is asking: why Dickie would even want a miserable, psychopath looking Tom Ripley around? Andrew Scott looks miserable and too serious all the time. The personage reminds me of those serial killers in Scandinavia noir series. He is just too obvious. But what you and so many others call the "original" is actually the second version.The first and best version is a French film titled Purple Noon' in English. It's with Alain Delon. Patricia Highsmith considered him "excellent' as Tom Ripley. She also said that she wrote the sequels to "The Talented Mr. Ripley" because the French film affected her in a positive way. The book was set in the 50s. The first film was actually filmed in 1959. The series is very distant to the book when it comes to the personages so it's the less faithful to the book even if it has more of the details present in the book seeing that Tom, Dickie, Marge and Freddie are what really matter and they are so miscast in the series and their personages are so different to the book and the previous and better two films. As for the age : Andrew Scott was 47 . Old enough to be the father of Matt Damon (29) and Alain Delon (25) at the time of their films. Scott was seriously miscast.

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

They play it so differently. Labrador v cat