Ripley - starts today on Netflix. Anyone fancy a discussion thread?

[Netaporter]

Based upon the book ‘The talented mr ripley’ by Patricia Highsmith Andrew Scott stars in this adaptation. It is filmed in B&W so interested to see how this differs from the glorious film starring Gwyneth, Jude and Matt Damon.

Going to start episode 1 later this morning.

So boring. And Andrew Scott is 47 so barely believable as a Tom Ripley in his early twenties. Dullsville.

Marge is quite frumpy in the book though. She's a bit dowdy and not glam enough for Dickie. Gwyneth was way too hot for the original role. She's clearly in love with him and he's not with her. In fact they aren't actually having a relationship in the book. Or only occasional hook ups. And there's more ambiguity over Dickies sexuality. The whole pregnancy of a local girl plotline was made up for the film.

My main complaint is that so far Ripley has no charm. He's acting like a stroppy teen most of the time. Which wouldn't get him to where he gets to (especially in the later books).

“Freddie. I hate stunt casting at the best of times and I hate being treated as if I’m stupid. Don’t treat me like the people in The Emperor’s New Clothes by asking me to pretend that I can’t see that Freddie - for no plot-related reason that I can see - is being played by a thirty year old woman who can’t act.”

Yep - totally agree. It kinda ruined the whole thing for me and sounds stupid I know, but actually felt disrespectful to the rest of the cast who are actually credible actors. Why go to all that trouble with such a sumptuous aesthetic and location if you’re going to make such a bizarre casting choice?

I haven't really read the books but I think Tom really is a practiced con man and I like how this version shows that more. Damon's version sort of falls into the situation and turns into the con man, but in this version, he's clearly perfectly comfortable with crimes and scams. I think this is his first time murdering, and his emotional investment in Dickie is what took him there, but his perfect comfort with the gangster makes it clear that he's no bumbling innocent.

I didn't know Freddie was played by a woman and thought it was good casting. Not as good as Hoffman, but definitely creepy and awful in a unique way. Made me root for Tom.

For some reason I thought it had Andrew Garfield (rather than Andrew Scott) in it (who would still be too old at 40).

I read the first 3 books, but they were so stupid. And too many snails. Patricia Highsmith was obsessed with snails, apparently she would bring a handbag full of snails to dinner parties.

Yes the plots are bonkers at times. I am determined to read them all as I've read the first 3, but she combines the ability to write very well with absolutely tonto plotting. Apparently the director of this wants to adapt them all but that would need some major changes to make them remotely credible.

I thought fhe b&w was meant to evoke a kind of Dolce Vita vibe of the era when it's set.

In the book you know TR is an audacious con man from the off so I think they've played it closer to the original story.

I've seen the first six episodes and think it's excellent.

Is Eliot Sumner trans now? I’m pretty sure she (they?) used to be called Coco.

The film version was just so well cast - everyone was credible in their roles and did superb jobs - but this? Not so much…

I've just started episode 7 having binged it.

I don't mind Ripley being older, he has backstory as a grifter so it fits.
Eliot Sumner cannot act - what was the point of casting them?

Andrew Scott is fab as always. Never has murder and its aftermath been portrayed as such hard work.

Eliot Sumner cannot act - what was the point of casting them?

Nepo-baby.

Loved it. Love the judgy cat 😂 I thought Andrew Scott did a great job but the actor who played Dickie was awful, such dull, wooden acting. Also the woman who played Freddie was really dreadful. The B&W put me off at first, I got used to it and liked the noir vibe but would have preferred colour.

at judgy cat.

Like the judgy dog in In Bruges. Animals always know a wrong 'un.

I just saw that Sting & Trudie Styler have five kids! I hope they don’t all go in to acting.
The Freddie character would have worked better if Tom had said something about Freddie being a woman & then Dickie could say something like ‘Freddie is just Freddie.’ As others have said Eliot Sumner is non binary not a trans male so it seems odd for them to be cast as a male character. They didn’t wow me with their performance but I’m only on episode 3.

Loved the photography. Loved the build up and background of Toms character. Could watch Andrew Scott all day. Marge and Freddie. Not sure they were the best choice of actors for those roles. Freddie. Choice of casting there just plain weird. Detracted from the story for me. Getting a little weary of these nepo babies tbh!

I didnt get through the first episode! Probably just me but it was SO slooooow!

I just stopped comparing it to the film. Or the book (which I can hardly remember as the film was so brilliant.)Then started to really enjoy it. I think they've made a lot of intentional changes. Jude Law was such an arrogant tosser that I actually felt a bit sorry for Ripley at first in the film, over the fridge incident.

I love how sweet and insecure Dickie is in this version. You get the impression he's escaped to Europe to avoid the judgement of his bullish father, so he can enjoy being arty not get pushed into the family business. Money has softened his edges and made him a bit guileless, not a scorning socialite. It's an interesting new interpretation.

Them all being older gives it a different complexion. I love how lazy Ripley is, scowling at all the steps and (trying not to give spoilers here) all the struggles with the boat. That laziness is quite a characteristic of psychopathy and not often shown.

Savouring every scene. Loving it!

Well, I rewatched the film after watching the series. ( Don't judge me, I have an illness and need lots of rest 🙈).

The film is of its time. I didn't remember it being as homo erotic..but it is much more focussed on repressed homosexuality than the new one. I think it plays to a lot of sympathy for Ripley. It's a very glossy film but the awful Freddie and the casual cruelty of Dickie made you sympathetic to Ripley. PSH was just brilliantly awful though. The new Freddie was quite dull.

The film also gave the impression that Ripley just stumbled into an escalating situation. Much less coldly scheming than the series.

I enjoyed the grittier interpretation. Both are really good though I think, just very different.

The police officer is brilliant

I also love how shit Dickie's paintings were as he's just a rich kid playing at it and Tom is naturally a better artist.

I have mixed feelings about Freddie but do think it's better that they didn't try to copy Philip Seymour Hoffman in the role. He was horribly brilliant and inimitable.

Not missing the links made to Caravaggio. Talented Mr Ripley was a flimsy glitzy and superficial movie version, which I guess if you like flimsy and glitzy and superficial is just the ticket. This version is a much more artistic portrayal.

Me too, so disappointed 😕

I hated it and was really looking forward to it. Agree that Ripley was way too old. It was too slow but there was no tension at all. Making it black and white and having 'arty' shots of lots of stairs and looking through windows isn't enough to make it noir.
I watch a lot of b & w and this just seemed grey - not enough contrast. What a waste.

Binged it all and grew to love it! I loved the film, but stopped comparing after a few episodes. I get the age thing, but forgot after a while. The John Malkovich cameo was clever as it kind of linked the difference between the Jude Law film and the later films, which I didn't really enjoy. It was a shame that the stunning scenery was in B&W, but the film noir effect got me and played well with the story. Have to agree with the Freddie character. It felt like a very poor imitation of PSH, I was rooting for that murder!