Andrew Scott, the greatest!!! 👏👏👏👏

Andrew is stunning on this show💫

it really make the series looks more intriguing on colorless. it even make every scene looks like a painting. really looking forward to it

*Timestamps for the video* Start: 0:00 End: 2:04

We are giving our friends a free Netflix subscription with this one 🗣️🔥🔥

Andrew Scott is My Valentine 💖😍. this Show is Coming

Perfection 😍

Thank you irishh❤❤

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". The four main actors are so miscast! Especially, of course, the actors playing Tom Ripley and Freddie Miles. 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. Scott's Tom looks miserable or somber all the time. What rich, spoiled, fun loving Dickie Greenleaf would like to have someone like him around? The best way to see the nonsense of Scott's performance is to watch Alain Delon as Tom in "Plein Soleil". He is always smiling and trying to have fun. Incidentally, he was 25 at the time of the film. Matt Damon was 29 at the time of Minghella's film. Scott Andrew at 47 and looking it. He could be the father of those actors at the time of their films. And don't give me the lame excuse that Scott is a more mature Ripley. He is supposed to be 25 in the series. This is from the first episode: 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. This is from a recorded conversation with Patricia HIghsmith in the British Library. The interviewer asks if "The Talented Mr. Ripley" was originally supposed to be a one off film. She says " yes". Then the interviewer asks why she changed her mind and wrote sequels. These are Patricia Highsmith's very words: "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 guess that the adoration for Andrew Scott's mediocre, nonsensical interpretation of Tom Ripley is caused mainly by an audience numbed by too many Scandinavian noir series and the likes. They need an obvious villain otherwise they will feel nothing. On the other hand, I suspect the main reason for the success of the series is its exquisite cinematography. But there is something wrong about a series or film where the images are more important than the story. In addition, it's clear that most people praising the Netflix series never read the book, never watched the first and best film , watched the second film 20 years ago if they watched it at all. Considering all that, it's an easy guess that most people praising this mediocre series to high heaven are watching Patricia Highsmith's story for the first time. I guess I would probably like the series if I hadn't read the book and watched the two films, especially René Clément's film and the "voluptuous" colours created by the revolutionary cinematographer Henri Decaë. But I would still find strange that a spoiled , rich young man enjoying life in a paradisiacal village with a beach would like to have around him a miserable looking guy such as the nonsensical Tom Ripley created by Andrew Scott. One poster wrote an excellent description of Tom Ripley, the original personage in the book. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Andrew Scott is wolf only and a mediocre one at that.

@Member_Of_the_Golden_Dawn

Күн бұрын

Ripley is not supposed to be smiling and full of joy, idiot. I bet you never touched original book.

When I was watching this movie I did not understand it

@priscilajunger7223

Ай бұрын

Its a show