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.

Ooh, glad I found this thread - thought it was just me who was a bit bewildered at all the rave reviews! I'm a bit into episode 3 and finding it a real slog, it's sooo slow and none of it makes any sense; why would any of these people even want to hang out together, they all seem miserable as sin! Freddie was just dreadful, hoping she's not coming back. And Marge only seems to have one expression - aren't they supposed to be hedonistic bright young things? She looks like she'd be much selling cakes at the church fete and he looks like he wants to be curled up in an armchair with the Telegraph and a mug of bitter. Can't imagine them kissing let alone stripping off to make dreadful nudes. Scott's a great actor but doesn't seem to have figured out what he's doing, other than occasionally scowling menacingly. Though probably that's the material, one minute Ripley is awkward and can barely speak, the next he's inviting gangsters round?! Why would he think the boring middle-aged Dickie would ever want any part of that - especially as the whole point is that he's rich and doesn't need the money! And why on Earth would Ripley have had his back to the door during his weird dressing up party when he knew Dickie could be home any minute? And who would forgive coming home to find their mate doing that? Even if it was your bestie you'd surely be a bit perturbed and probably agree some time apart might be an idea, these two men barely even seem to converse and yet Dickie's happy to just forget it?! Black and white just seems pointlessly pretentious, feels like they're hoping it will make people say nice things about it cause they want to be considered 'arty' for liking a B&W show. It's not even terribly well shot. Very disappointed, but glad I'm not alone.

We have watched three episodes. I love that it a slow build. The suspense creeps up on you. I adore all of it.

I’ve been reading up about the cat. His name is King and he's a Maine coon. He was the third cat to be cast in the part, others wandered off apparently. He just sat and stared!

It's shot like the Italian neorealism 50s movies. But Scott is way too old, although he's good.

Have binged the whole lot but ended up fast forwarding a lot of the later episodes (which I never normally do) just to get through it cause hardly anything was happening. Was so looking forward to this and I've found it horribly disappointing.

I ended up watching the film version afterwards and a lot of things that are left unexplained here, make so much more sense in the movie. Like Tom stealing the typewriter to write letters - it's explained in the film Dickie always types his letters, no mention of this in the show (unless I missed it). And why Dickie lets Tom hang around for so long - in the film, Dickie tells Marge he makes him laugh and they're shown having loads of fun together, whereas in the show you didn't get any sense of why Dickie and Tom were friends at all.

The film also showed Tom successfully impersonating other people. When I heard Andrew Scott's Ripley pretending to be other people I just thought he was role playing conversations rather than imitating them because he sounded exactly the same.

And don't get me started on the ridiculous finale to the show...

The film was leagues ahead.

I've finished it, the last few episodes had a bit of a self conscious Wes Anderson feel.

I don't think it told the story any better than the film, despite having 5 3/4 hours more to play with.

Me too. I love Johnny Flynn and just starting episode two.

Just finished episode 3, not sure I'll be back - how can they make the big climax scene so bloody boring?! Fast forwarded through almost all the boat stuff. How did this get such good reviews? Has reminded me how good - and how beautifully shot - the film was, might just watch that again instead of finishing this. It also made a lot more sense, all these characters seem to do random things without any kind of motivation or continuity. Why would Dickie take him to the middle of the sea out of sight to tell him he doesn't want to see him anymore? That seems a weird place to break up with someone; even if you don't think they might murder you it'd still be a very awkward trip back to shore!

And why Dickie lets Tom hang around for so long - in the film, Dickie tells Marge he makes him laugh and they're shown having loads of fun together, whereas in the show you didn't get any sense of why Dickie and Tom were friends at all.

I thought the same.

Jude Law was stunningly beautiful, charming and fun. It may have been all superficial but you could definitely see the allure. Matt Damon as Tom was geeky and socially inept, but he was witty and clever. You could see how Dickie might like having him around as a 'plaything', to be discarded when he tired of him.

Here, Dicky is just so dull and has none of Jude Law's charms. And I know I keep saying it, but the actors' age means that their characters just don't make sense. The only one about the right age is Dakota Fanning. Typical. The characters are supposed to be the same age, but the actress is a good decade younger than the actors.

Yes @IcedPurple! There's no chemistry whatsoever between the main 3. Dakota has the most thankless role which is so one note and tepid. In the film, you could see the charm and affection in their relationships. And how Tom could be seduced by the whole carefree lifestyle (not just nice rings and watches).

I said earlier in the thread how much I enjoyed this series. I've rewatched the film today and I think this is a classic case of comparison being the thief of joy. They're both really good but very different so best considered in isolation.

Has anyone seen the John Malkovich Ripley movie? (Adapted from a different book) Is it any good?

The John Malkovich film is very good, in fact I haven't seen a Ripley adaptation I haven't liked.

Even the Alien ones

I've just finished it .. it just gets better and better and for those John Malkovich fans a little treat .... xx

Having watched it all, the thing that is striking is how still so many of the characters are, and the looking! Very little of it warm. I suppose it means you pay attention to the one who moves the most, Ripley, and he's in most scenes, though still not frenetic. He rarely cracks a smile and those dead eyes he used so well as Moriarty, another nutter of the first water.

I am struggling to remember but in the book is there a bit where Dickie suggests Tom should stay around and fleece his dad for cash?

I loved it and will watch again at a slower pace. I binged it the first time around.

Is the film or this series more true to the book(s?) does anyone know?

Is this all the books?

Was the film?

Patricia Highsmith wrote five books with Ripley as the protagonist. Ripley's Game was made into a film starring John Malkovich. She also wrote Strangers on a Train which was filmed. Great writer.

Well I've ordered all the books!

Have seen Strangers on a Train but can't remember the ending!

I enjoyed all the Ripley books but felt that the protagonist of the later books was a completely different man to the Ripley of TTMR.

Still got two episodes left. Overall I'm enjoying it, although it is a little slow in places and I wish it wasn't B&W.

Freddie seems like a real misstep with the casting. The 2020s gender bending just rips you right out of the story. Philip Seymour Hoffman's Freddie was just perfect - completely vile and untouchable (until he wasn't).

Dakota Fanning is playing the role a lot more true to the book Marge, who is a jolly hockey sticks type and who comes across as rather frumpy. Gwyneth was too glam for the role. However, Dakota Fanning's long hair left naturally wavy is anachronistic for the year it's suppose to be set, even for a bohemian type.

I thought the supporting Italian actors are very good, including the inspector, the landlady, the smiley mafioso, all the hotel receptionists. Just excellent performances and all have managed to bring layers to characters with few lines. They have been the stand-out for me so far.

Whoever was responsible for the Italian side of the casting deserves a bonus.

I'm on episode 3 and enjoying it, I will probably watch the film again to compare. DH said it was very slow, a lot of pauses and went off outside earlier, well he just came in and said had it moved on because it looked the same as earlier and then made snoring sounds and grunted 'tedious'

Having just finished episode 4, I am enjoying it more than previous episodes. With Dicky dead, I'm no longer comparing him to the Greek god that was Jude Law's Dicky, and no longer missing the chemistry between him and Matt Damon's Tom, which just isn't a feature in this adaptation. This Tom seems to be a straightforward con man mostly motivated by material gain, which I believe is more true to the book. Whereas in the film, Tom kind of fell into the whole thing and was in love with Dicky and everything he represented.

I agree with the poster who said all the Italian actors are excellent, although it does annoy me a bit when after several scenes with Tom struggling in Italian, we discover that they all speak flawless colloquial English.

I still don't like the black and white. It's harsh and pretentious.

DH and I have just finished it. I loved it all and now i want to go to Italy. Black and white, 60's Italy.

I re-watched TTMR last night and was newly amazed by what a thoroughly repugnant, shallow human being Dickie is. Top acting Mr Law. Everyone is so very good and its approach is so different that comparing the latest, while inevitable, is pointless for me.

Both are excellent in their own ways.