44 KEY Differences Between RIPLEY (2024) and THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 кві 2024
- In this video we look at some of the major differences and compare Steve Zaillian’s RIPLEY (2024) starring Andrew Scott with Anthony Minghella’s THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY starring Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and Cate Blanchett.
Check out my other Comparison Videos here: • Crazy Cool Comparisons
FOLLOW ME:
Twitter: / thinkstoryyt
Instagram: / thinkstoryyt
TikTok: / thinkstory
#Ripley #Netflix - Фільми й анімація
🍸🍸What was better? RIPLEY (2024) or THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (1999)?🍸🍸
Check out my other Comparison Videos here: ua-cam.com/play/PLY9KJ1cFVs7gMQ-gKIuedkPVSpTfGQB26.html
Havent seen the new one jet, but 1999 looks more lively
99 was flashy, trashy Hollywood.
24 was much more European-subtle, brooding- a completely downplayed film noir…
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.
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
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.
Andrew Scott is amazing as Ripley.
His character reminds me of Anthony Perkins portrayal of Norman bates in Psycho.
Yes! Tom is a bit like Norman in all those quiet moments. Good analogy!
Yessss! I said the same thing!!
Totally!
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.
The decision to shoot in B & W for the 2024 is brilliant. Somehow it made everything became more dramatic on screen!
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.
I often rewatch 99 for that retro summer vibe of them hanging out as friends and listening to jazz
I like jazz but My Funny Valentine was on repeat too many times!
The black and white cinematography was visually stunning
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.
"Tommy, how is the peeping?"-Freddie (Philip Seymour Hoffman) teasing Tom (Matt Damon).
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???
irreplaceable Philip Seymour Hoffman
While I very much enjoyed Seymour Hoffman performance, I really appreciated the cold, implacable, elegant arrogance of Eliot Sumner. So well played
@elenazaslavsky5268 When Freddie confrontated Ripley at the appartment, in the 1999 version, that was the scene!
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.
totally agree with you!!
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.
@@sb5224 Yes, very true.
Very well said
Well said!
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.
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.
Neither did I. Hoffman was magnificent. Especially his facial gestures. Apparently the current Freddy is Nepo Baby Son of Sting.
Is the actor a man or a woman , I can’t tell
@@nycgweedGoogle it
Apparently the actor is indeed a woman. In real life the daughter of Sting.
@@nycgweedDEI casting.
Apples and oranges. I love both but the 2024 is darker.
I don't know how you can get darker than him strangling his lover at the end of the 99 one
@@MeatCatCheesyBlaster Have you seen the new one? Andrew Scott plays it darker and creepier regardless of the ending.
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.
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 🙂
Excellent comment and analysis.
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.
I agree and I enjoyed reading your comment!
@@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
@@flaminguo I also saw art in every frame in the series, as you so eloquently described. The series is essential viewing for film students.
@@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.
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.
@@juliajulie8500 you're right, it was less obvious from the start
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.
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.
all the casts are perfect except Freddie
Your comment sounds like the studio marketing department wrote it.
@@terri6854 it sound like it but it’s hearth felt as it blew me away.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
@@laurabrown8161 Me too 😂
I couldn't agree more😂
And he made no effort to change personality characteristics!
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@nuschlerclark895 yawn... all I hear was "blah blah blah". Go talk to someone who cares, honey.
@@nuschlerclark895absolutely not. Matt Damon was perfectly cast.
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.
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.
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 😊
I hear ripley I think alien
Lol I think the same thing too
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.
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 😄
I love Andrew Scott. Different stories are great. 👍
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 think Ripley being in black and white had more pact. I enjoyed the talented me Ripley but I think the netflix series was superb.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
Same, I enjoyed both, so different, it makes me feel I need to read the book 😂
Fun fact; Eliot Sumner who plays Freddie is Sting’s kid
Sting's daughter who is pretending to be something else.
@@wjglll340 alright bigot
@@wjglll340 Sting’s kid because they are non-binary
@@genevievebe303 That's bs.
excellent!! mmmmm their gender identity & expression plays brilliantly for that role.
The winner: Plein Soleil (1960)
No.
Alain Delon was great, but the movie has a disappointing ending.
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
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.
Wow awesome I didn’t even know thank you for this
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!
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.
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.
1999 Talented Ripley reigns supreme.
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.
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.
That's racist
No
@@ParisLawLesswhy because the new version is black and white? 😂😂😂
Both are amazing works of art 💯
Excellent recap
really was blown away by the new Ripley. Downright masterpiece
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!"
You have to watch "Plein soleil", the french version made in the 60' with Alain Delon, another different version...
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.
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.
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.
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. 😂
Incredible how two (three in fact) versions that respect the source material can be so different and so excellent.
John Malkovich played the definitive Ripley in the superb Ridley’s Game.
Yes! I Agree
No way he was better than Alain Delon and Matt Damon.
Should have never tried to recreate the original. A sequel taking place right after the move, have at it, best of luck but this was DOA and Ripleys Game was acceptable and even welcome
I LOVE Ripley's Game and John Malkovich. I feel he and Andrew Scott both have that Machiavellian sinister cold intellect that I love.
@@Rhauxshna82 Ripleys Game had the perfect balance in the examination of Tom Ripley.
Purple Noon with Alen Delon as Ripley was an amazing movie also. The best part was when the body of Dickie got entangle with the boat and was dragged all the way to shore..
The cinematography in Ripley is out of this world. Reminds me of the video to Wonderful Life by Black
1999 one is better, imo
Watch the 1960 one with Alain Delon.
90s> but Ripley was good too. I love the photography, it was magnificent.
The opera scene is one of the finest cinematic moments of the 90's.
I love both versions, the 99 one for the sexiness and the 24 one for the darkness. The Netflix version has some of the most extraordinary camera work that I have seen on Netflix and maybe in general, each shot is a piece of art, setting the mood perfectly, all the little details in the shots are important and adds to the storytelling. The aesthetics of the locations, the artwork, architecture are just stunning.
I loved that the "killing scenes" had so many complications in them, maybe the killing was easy..but the rest certainly not, it had me on th edge of my seat the whole time. In the Netflix version, we are completely in Riley's mind, but never feel sorry for him. Matt Damons Ripley is more of a tragic character, as I feel he is way more trapped in himself and his sexuality.
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.
Apparently Sting's son is actually his da ughter. Go figure.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Totally and utterly brilliant new version, omg how could they do something so outstanding ....wowwwwww !!!!!
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 ...:)
Can you do a breakdown of the new ahs delicate part 2 episodes?
Are you going to review the new AHS season part 2?
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.
Really enjoyed both.. Also isnt there an earlierversion?
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.
@@momof3plusdsg thanks for the info. Want to watch all 3 again.
There's also the original Alain Delon 's Plein soleil (purple noon) from 1960
Andrew Scott was perfection. 2024 wins
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 liked the original better but the remake fleshed out the story more. Both are worth the watch.
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.
Ripley…love that it was filmed black & white
Thank you, the 99 movie is perhaps my favourite ever.
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.
Ripley , Andrew Scott's portrayal was a magnificent piece of acting
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!
You should have read the book by Patricia Highsmith. The Netflix Ripley is very close to the book. The 1999 version is aesthetically pleasing but the new version is the better story.
Tom is very creepy from the first in the Netflix version.
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."
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.
One thing that sticks out for me is the contrasting ways Dickie interacts with the local people. In 1999 film when Tom meets Dickie and Marge they are at a local beach in town surrounded by the locals who are also enjoying the sun. In 2024 series Tom meets Dickie and Marge on a beach but there are no local people there and you get the sense that the locals use a different beach. Also Dickie in the 1999 version goes to local jazz clubs with his friends from town, plays bocci ball with the locals and having sex with local girls. In 2024 version the only locals we see Dickie talking to are those who work for him.
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!
What about the sequel with John Malkovich “Ripley’s Game”? And now John is in this version.
BRILLIANT GEORGOUS GREAT SERIES, BETTER THAN THE FLICK, LOVE THE CAST LOVE THE B&W EFFECT AND PHOTOGRAPHY!!!!
I enjoyed them both but honestly the videography and more authentic costuming in Ripley far out surpassed The Talented Mr. Ripley
I really liked this version, but the 90s version was just perfect.
“The Talented…” was a phenomenal movie although it really lost me briefly when we were treated to Mat Damon’s early 2000’s “Hollywood” 6-pac abs…something that no unassuming…or for that matter, wealthy…1940’s young man would have ever bothered to try to develop.
Totally incongruent with the style of the period and social class.
No contest for me.....Andrew Scott got all the nuances of the character brilliantly and we finally have a definitive Ripley on screen in the Netflix version...The black and white filming was inspired and truly captured the look and feel of the novel in all it's malevolence...You got much more of how Ripley's mind works in the portrayal by Mr Scott then Matt Damon's rather immature version..Ripley is anything but immature and this version more then proves that...Also Mr Damon's Ripley glasses keep loses it's lenses from scene to scene and even in the same edit, for heaven's sake..The Netflix series also gave us a much more faithful adaptation then the 1999 film and it is, by far, a much more superior rendering of the story from beginning to end. It was also good to see John Malkovich portraying an shady art dealer in a episode as he was Tom Ripley in the great 2002 film RIPLEY'S GAME, a filmed version of the third Ripley novel..One hopes Netflix has the balls to film all 5 books in the Patricia Highsmith's Ripley saga..
Preferred the Talented Mr Ripley and also Ripleys Game when he is played by John Malkovitch
The new version is the business!
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.
In the movie, he is the "talented" Mr. Ripley, thus the character is portrayed in a light that woukd endear us to him somewhat. In the series he is no less "talented" but we are allowed to see his cold, calculated sociopathic machinations in greater detail, though in both instances we somewhat want him to get away with it. My knee-jerk reaction would be make the clichéd choice that the film is superior to the series purely because "its the original" but somehow the series feels more "original" than the film. Both do a marvelous job of portraying that magical charm of Italy, linguistically and cinematically, even the nuanced intonations in some Italian conversations, but even the series takes this to a new level, even doing it without colour.
Andrew Scott gave by far a superior interpretation of the character.
They play it so differently. Labrador v cat
Both the movie and the TV show and the movie are different interpretations of the source material that it came from. It's kind of hard to compare them because one is a movie with a limited run time and this miniseries has multiple episodes. But they both seem like different interpretations of the same character. I think my only major complaint is the oddness with the age of Ripley and also Dickie not being such a likeable person in this miniseries
I thought Dickie was a more likable character in the miniseries. He seems to not wish to hurt Tom even though he isn't as fond of him as Tom is of Dickie. He also doesn't want to hurt Marge. The Jude Law character was completely amoral; I didn't think this Dickie was--just a guy who doesn't want to work much.
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!
Malkovich also played Ripley in 2002's Ripley's Game
Hey dr morrison from Curb was in the 99 version. 99 version was good, haven't seen netflix series.The books are excellent.
I like the Ripley books and movie. The Ripley series is beautifully filmed. By episode 3 it starts to drag. I actually stopped watching at that point, but later finished till the last episode. Movie was better, but the series is worth a watch.
I love this reinvarnation of Tom Ripley. The 1999 film becomes a joke over time while Purple Noon is reign supreme. This series feels like a Noir. This version isn’t a crime of passion but an eat the rich theme. The series makes fan of the mundane of climbing of the staircase or having refrigerator. If the idea is to continue beyond the first book, I really want to see more. Especially that they almost stepping to the second book of the series.
You Forget an adaptation of Highsmith's novel : "Plein soleil" de René Clément (1960) with Alain Delon.
Loved them both❤