A grifter named Ripley living in New York during the 1960s is hired by a wealthy man to bring his vagabond son home from Italy.A grifter named Ripley living in New York during the 1960s is hired by a wealthy man to bring his vagabond son home from Italy.A grifter named Ripley living in New York during the 1960s is hired by a wealthy man to bring his vagabond son home from Italy.
- Won 4 Primetime Emmys
- 20 wins & 57 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
Be warned, once you start, this series will keep you hooked.
Ripley is depicted very differently to the charming person from the film.
Awkward. Calculating. Desperate.
That's how I'd sum him up.
And this is not only filmed beautifully in crisp 4K with visual finesse and a Hitchcock feel.
It has just the right attention to sound design with a beautiful composition.
The character reactions, where more is said with less words kept me intrigued.
It is a mini series but you'll feel like you're watching one great movie after the next as you go from episode to episode.
And one I'd be happy to watch more than once.
Ripley is depicted very differently to the charming person from the film.
Awkward. Calculating. Desperate.
That's how I'd sum him up.
And this is not only filmed beautifully in crisp 4K with visual finesse and a Hitchcock feel.
It has just the right attention to sound design with a beautiful composition.
The character reactions, where more is said with less words kept me intrigued.
It is a mini series but you'll feel like you're watching one great movie after the next as you go from episode to episode.
And one I'd be happy to watch more than once.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This Netflix series had the most sumptuous cinematography I've seen in a while. Nearly every shot was a work of art, a moment captured in time, a beautiful and sinister view into this retelling of the story of psychopath Tom Ripley. This version takes its time to unfold the story, and Andrew Scott is the perfect actor for the part. Having just seen him in quite a different role in "All of Us Strangers", I was reminded what a versatile and compelling actor he is (and of course great in "Fleabag").
While some have called the show "slow", I think our vastly reduced attention spans don't allow us to savor the unspooling of a narrative. I enjoyed the long shots with interesting camera angles and the use of black and white was a genius move, adding to the dark undertones of the show. It was definitely a successful passion project for Steven Zaillian, though I think the role of Dickie could have used an actor with at least a smidge of charisma, and fun fact, the spawn of Sting and Trudie Styler plays Freddie, though only with limited success. Regardless of any minor quibbles, I definitely recommend it.
While some have called the show "slow", I think our vastly reduced attention spans don't allow us to savor the unspooling of a narrative. I enjoyed the long shots with interesting camera angles and the use of black and white was a genius move, adding to the dark undertones of the show. It was definitely a successful passion project for Steven Zaillian, though I think the role of Dickie could have used an actor with at least a smidge of charisma, and fun fact, the spawn of Sting and Trudie Styler plays Freddie, though only with limited success. Regardless of any minor quibbles, I definitely recommend it.
Did you know
- TriviaAndrew Scott is the sixth actor to portray Tom Ripley on film, after
- Crazy credits"The Equilizer 3" was also filmed in Atrani (film name there: Altamonte). In this movie Dakota Fanning was also participating.
- ConnectionsFeatured in WatchMojo: Top 10 TV Shows of 2024 (So Far) (2024)
- How many seasons does Ripley have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Ріплі
- Filming locations
- Pio Monte della Misericordia, Via dei Tribunali, 253, 80139 Napoli NA, Italy(Home of Caravaggio's 'The Seven Works of Mercy'.)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content