Ripley

The 1999 "Talented Mr Ripley" with Matt Damon and Jude Law is one of my favorites to re-watch. However, being a movie and required to fit the time allowed, we don't learn much about Tom Ripley's back story, his normal life, nor of the many side stories in Europe. We know that, when he is mistaken for a Princeton guy, he doesn't correct the record. We learn early that deception is his friend.

In this 8-part series called just "Ripley" we see more clearly that this Tom is a bit older and how he lives the life of a grifter in New York. For example, he encounters the mail carrier and pretends to be going into the Dr Office, is handed the mail, he finds checks that he can cash. Or he pretends to be a bill collector and has a new check sent to his "agency." Using a variety of fictional identities, if a bank gets suspicious he just walks away and destroys that identity. He is slick and unperturbed, a man on his mission.

So the entire series has the same core story, with the same core characters and their relationships, but it treats Tom in a distinctly different light. It starts when Mr Greenleaf hires a P. I. to find Ripley, we are not sure why he knows about him, but that is how Tom gets the paid assignment to go to Italy and find Dickie.

There are a number of other differences but Tom is forever the grifter and when he realizes what Dicky has he wants it too. He wants that life, and the first episode ends with him practicing in the mirror, introducing himself as Dicky Greenleaf, foreshadowing what the rest of the series will be about.

The show is shot in B&W, which I see some complain about. But I love it, to give it that 'film noir' look and feel. With much more running time to play with it goes a bit deeper in some familiar scenes and also adds some that were not included in the movie. And finally, the last scenes and the ending are heading into a completely different direction.

In my mind there is no value trying to compare this 6 1/2 hour miniseries to the 1999 movie, they are quite different takes on the same core story. I like what they did here, I like the more deliberate pace, I like the B&W approach, to me it helps it feel like 1960s Italy.

Dark but good series, entertaining.

Andrew Scott gives a deeply neurotic and disturbing impression of one of the most beloved psychopaths in movie history. He's a great actor and he knows exactly what he's doing, sharp, precise, intense, on top of his acting skills.

Zaillian stretches the story out here, (sometimes a little bit too much in the last three episodes), taking 8 hours, compared to shorter former versions. I must say I like all versions, because Highsmith's original story is of genius quality, and it allows to open a lot of doors to different interpretations. I loved Alain Delon in the Rene Clement classic, as well as Matt Damon in the luscious Minghella version, but comparing the different interpretations in detail would take to long.

About this one: Yes, I loved that it was shot in atmospheric black and white (fantastic cinematography, every frame a piece of art!), I loved that this version was slow, I loved that it was so dark, I loved the sardonic humour.

I could have easily given this version 10 stars, but, I am sorry to say, the characterization of Freddie Miles didn't work for me here.

In my mind, Alain Delon in Rene Clement's 1960 "Purple Noon" was the definitive Tom Ripley. Beautiful and totally amoral. Anthony Minghella's 1999 "The Talented Mr Ripley" had a bland but thoughtful Tom Ripley who felt and suffered. Minghella had a superb script, Gwyneth Paltrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Cate Blanchett playing riveting, unforgettable characters. There was also John Malcovich in a Liliana Cavani version, and although I've seen it, I don''t remember it, isn't that terrible? And the Wim Wenders version with Dennis Hopper doesn't count, good film, but it doesn't count as a version of Patricia Highsmith's novel. Now this. Ripley, the series. Hours long, in black and white. My first reaction was to rejected it but the truth is that I finish seeing it over a week ago and stayed with me, I can't shake it off. Why I wonder. And the reason is very simple. Steven Zaillian's version is truly wonderful. He has de-glamorized it. The whole thing. The story, the characters. Oh the characters. I was so used to see beautiful people playing them, in gloriously glamorous locations. This version is stark and Andrew Scott is like a replicant. No emotions, not even a hint of them. Invisible. As a consequence we do all the work. We gasp or look away. He just goes on. I know I'm going to see Ripley again, maybe not tomorrow but soon. I suspect you will too.

Black and white never looked so beautiful. I doubt even early 1960s Italy was this beautiful. This was the most visually stunning project I have seen in decades.

The performances were excellent as well as the direction. The writing was a bit drawn out. This really could have been two hours shorter, but you really don't mind it.

If Netflix could come up with something half this good on a semi monthly basis they'd be in the black again. This wasn't just visually appealing it was actually mature and reasonably cerebral. Miles above their usual offerings.

Warning: If you watch this, you will become addicted.

I loved the 'Talented Mr Ripley' version, however, have enjoyed this just as much in a different way. I liked the fact that it didn't just try to copy the last version. I was a bit taken a back at the older Tom Ripley in this version but just decided that a longer time period had passed and got used to it.

I thought the actor playing Tom was fabulous and also the different Marge was streets better than Gwyneth Paltrow whom I thought was the big weakness in the previous version.

The black and white worked so well with this, more sinister, and moody version. Whilst the colour of the last version worked with the 'Talented' version which portrayed a much more extraverted and upbeat Dickie.

The negative element for me this time was Dickie. There seemed to be nothing to like about him and he lacked any charisma at all. He was a bit wooden and sexless to be honest. Last time, you felt that Tom had fallen so in love with the Jude Law version that he could not bear to be rejected by him or live without him. This time, I just felt that Tom wanted to take over his lifestyle but had no feelings for him. So, I think this version has fewer layers to it and something was missing.

Still, you just need to accept that this is a completely different version, and it is very watchable and intriguing. Certainly, the actor playing Tom IS the film. I think worth it just for his acting.