Andrew Scott IS Tom Ripley in “Ripley”

John Malkovich is a nice surprise.

Sting's trans offspring "tom what" is not a surprise, nor nice.

I thought Tom and Dickie are supposed to have gone to school together and to be recent graduates. Scott looks (and is) much older than Flynn, and they’re both middle-aged.

🤷🏻‍♂️

100% miscast. Way too old.

I posted this in the Ripley at 25 thread

The cast worked perfectly because they were of a similar age and point in their careers.

Matt Damon, 1970, Gwyneth Paltrow & Jude Law, 1972, Cate Blanchett, 1969, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, 1967, Jack Davenport, 1973.

The Netflix series however...

Andrew Scott, 1976, Dakota Fanning, 1994, Johnny Flynn, 1983, Sting's brain injured they/them son, 1990

Andrew Scott is far too old to be Tom Ripley. This is bad casting.

Well I can see why they wanted him for the part. He would have been a great Ripley when he was the right age.

I don’t r6. Andrew Scott is an actor you can tell is acting. He isn’t natural.

Yes, it looks good but very miscast.

Also, Ripley is a dangerous, amoral killer. But the reason he is successful is that he does not telegraph this in most of his interactions with his victims/pursuers, that is, he does not act like a possible villain but a charming character. The sullen, sombre looks are all wrong.

But he is creepy with superficial charm.

R9 Tom Ripley isn’t supposed to be creepy.

I suppose other than the initial set up (father sending Ripley to persuade playboy son to come home and be serious), the story could work with older characters. But Ripley is not a fully-formed murderer/con-man when he sets out. He’s kind of sucked into it by his own amorphous character, his envy ,and Dickie’s contempt. Hard to see a middle-aged man in the role.

Are they adopting the first book or the later books in the series? Ripley is middle-aged after the first book.

Sorry: "adapting," not "adopting"

Shadey Ripley Pines

You have to believe him as a killer who can charm. That to me is inherently creepy.

I don’t know how long they will follow him, but they have cast Dickie Greenleaf, so they are starting at the beginning.

It's not all gonna be black and white, is it?

Looks like it. Shame. The setting is so colorful.

What r16 said. If Dickie is there it’s the beginning.

R15 you definitely never read the books. He comes off as harmless and innocent and kind. No one ever feels threatened by him or creeped out. That’s part of what is so scary about him.

Gawd many of you are dumbasses. Ripley didn't stay 20 forever. I guess you never read the books. Or saw John Malkovich as Ripley. Or Dennis Hopper as Ripley.

He has to be both the “harmless’ charmer and the killer.

There’s no call to be rude. They are telling the story of Ripley’s beginning and rather than trying to have Scott play him young, they have aged up the supporting cast. That is an issue even if they tell the later stories

R21 yes. He kills. But he isn’t supposed to feel creepy otherwise. That’s the whole basis of Tom Ripley. A killer you never thought would be a killer. Which is why he gets away with it so much.

But the AUDIENCE knows he’s a killer.

As for the “not creepy” argument—John Malkovitch and Dennis Hopper?

R24 yeah. You’re slow. But you “work in the industry”.

^?

[quote] No one ever feels threatened by him or creeped out. That’s part of what is so scary about him.

[quote] He kills. But he isn’t supposed to feel creepy otherwise. That’s the whole basis of Tom Ripley. A killer you never thought would be a killer. Which is why he gets away with it so much.

That aspect of Ripley Matt Damon got correct.

Always creepy, even when beautiful

R20 Hopper and Malkovich played older iterations of Ripley. Dickie wasn’t in An American Friend. If the film has Dickie that means it starts at the beginning, which takes place right after college.

Also, why do you keep bringing up Dennis Hopper? You certainly never watched An American Friend because he comes off like a good guy in most cases. People trust him. You aren’t trusting someone who gives you the creeps.

R28 yes. And why hasn’t Alain Delon been brought up yet? He was the first Tom Ripley and someone you never would think is a killer. The issue with him was he was far too beautiful to be Ripley. He would have made a better Dickie.

I did bring up Alain Delon. In the creepy pic at r29. And to me, Dennis Hopper is also inherently creepy. Guess we’ll just have to disagree.

Another

There isn’t anything to disagree. Tom Ripley was written to be a certain way. That isn’t debatable.

R33 thinks a couple of facial expressions the other character in the film doesn’t see means they’re supposed to feel creepy to the other characters. They aren’t. You never watched that film. You do not even have a job. Just stay in your lane.

I said he is supposed to be creepy to the audience, not to the other characters. Do try to keep up.

R36 go reread your post

This one?

“ But the AUDIENCE knows he’s a killer.‘

Or this one?

“ He has to be both the “harmless’ charmer and the killer.”

R39 go read r9

That’s your first comment. Picking a line out of something and ignoring all that surrounds it isn’t honest.

With all due respect, that’s what you are doing. Even if you interpreted r9 that way, my further comments make it very clear that I am arguing that it is the audience that has to find Ripley creepy, not the other characters.

I thought Ripley was supposed to be hot or was that just Matt Damon?

Matt Damon was kind of awkward. Alain Delon was hot.

Why does Ripley now look like Frankenstein's monster with a terrible hair-dye-and-weave job?

I guess they’re trying to make Scott look younger than 47.

I didn't realize they are doing the first story. You're all right. He's way too old.

Leslie Howard as Romeo and Norma Shearer as Juliet

I will never get over this miscasting

Is Ripley a homo?

isnt the first novel a bit played out? most people have seen the two movies each more than once

Well, he's no Alain Delon..

[quote]I thought Tom and Dickie are supposed to have gone to school together and to be recent graduates.

In the book at least, Tom and Dickie didn't go to school together. They only had a very casual social acquaintance - Dickie does not even remember Tom when they meet after Dickie's father gets Tom to go over to Italy. And Tom likely wasn't a recent graduate because in the book he talks about lying about going to Princeton - he memorises what a Princeton graduate told him about what Princeton was like in case he needed to use it.

Thanks r51 was keen to watch but they’ve already blocked the video 🥲

R52 if Dickie barely remembers him doesn’t that mean they went to school together but he just doesn’t remember him? You have to still be in the same place to be acquainted

Loads just fine for me, r53.

No—they didn’t ACTUALLY go to school together. I thought Ripley poses as a classmate, but perhaps he has another attenuated social connection to Dickie

R54 It's on about page 3 of the book that he knows Dickie through a social connection. On about page 15 the father asks Tom where he went to school which is when Tom claims that he went to Princeton to try to impress him.

Looks arty, which may be a drawback. Also the B&W photography seems like a mannerism if they used it all the way through.

Is it being done period (1950s)? It’s hard to tell. The men look a tad retro but Fanning doesn’t really. And I doubt one ran into many sexually ambiguous folks in broad daylight in the mid-‘50s. Even in Europe !

It was illegal in Europe

R59 Which country? I can't find any reference about it being banned.

T60, I believe that was intended as a joke.

ok my bad. what was the joke though? I'm a little slow.

“ The Wolfenden Committee reported in 1957, and recommended the decriminalisation of private homosexual activity between consenting adults over the age of 21, but with heavier penalties against homosexual activity in public places.”

The decriminalization of private homosexual activity between two people over 21 was recommended for the first time in 1957.

Despite it first being recommended in 1957, it was not passed until a decade later in 1967. The law didn’t change in Scotland and Northern Ireland until the 80s, meaning homosexual acts was still illegal there throughout the 70s.

“In 1967 the Sexual Offences Act was passed which decriminalised private homosexual acts between men aged over 21, while at the same time imposing heavier penalties on street offences.

The law was not changed for Scotland until 1980, or for Northern Ireland until 1982.”

Gay sex was illegal for anyone under 21 until 1994, where the law allowed 18 and up to partake in gay sex and later was lowered to 16.

I assumed that the poster was talking about the book or one of the films, not about gay sex. FFS.

R66 r58 mentioned he doubts any sexually ambiguous men were walking around in broad daylight in the 50s, even in Europe so I stated that being gay was illegal in a lot of Europe in the 50s still, so he’s right, very few would be walking around like that.

They never get the Marge character right in these various adaptations. In the original novel Marge is a galumphing and rather naive and gawky wealthy fag hag type who clearly has an unrequited clingy crush on Dickie. The various films always try and romanticize and glamorize her, which is a shame because she's written by Highsmith to be so much more complex. And her relationship to Tom and Dickie is far more complicated than just being "the girl".

I don't hold out much hope for this adaptation which looks so gloomy and morose and heavy-handed in the trailer. And Scott looks ridiculously sinister which entirely misses the point of the character, as most upthread will agree.

Well, there's Brideshead Revisited (published 1945) for people who went around looking a bit faggy even back then.

R68 Yes, agree! She is kind of in love with Dickie in the book while he hooks up with her because there's almost no-one else around. She's a writer (or a wannabe writer) and a sort of no-nonsense person, not a glamorous person.

R68 he also looks OLD

[quote]I don't hold out much hope for this adaptation which looks so gloomy and morose and heavy-handed in the trailer.

That's pretty much all Hollywood fare these days.

I can't wait until those 'woke,' pessimistic, iconoclastic, Marxist 'progressives' currently running Hollywood are overthrown and it can go back to being run by normal moderates once more.

Then we'll get beautiful actors and uplifting, feel-good movies again.

Marxist? I'd bet on you being about 70 years old.

Andrew Scott on the cover of Attitude magazine, March/April 2024. Just before the release date of Ripley.

The trailer looks more Moriarty than Hot Priest. He had so much natural seductive charm in Fleabag that’s what he should have leaved into for Ripley.

[quote]Will there be future seasons of Ripley? Almost certainly. Zaillian has reportedly optioned all five of Highsmith’s novels about Ripley – The Talented Mr Ripley, Ripley Under Ground, Ripley’s Game, The Boy Who Followed Ripley and Ripley Under Water. They track the chancer as he travels from Greece to the French countryside, London, Salzburg, Berlin, and Tangier, marrying heiresses, forging paintings and becoming entangled with the mafia.

r73 That doesn't even look like him

I'd watch Andrew Scott clean toilets.

Anybody that doubts his abilities should watch his his film (monologue or one-hander) "Sea Wall." I'd also suggest his performance in "All Us Strangers."

(He's been hitting the gym. I hope it was his decision and not as a result of pressure. I'd hate to see him all bulked up. I like his"normal" look.)

New trailer

I am not a Matt Damon or Goop fan but I thought they did their best work in the original. Jude Law and Cate Blanchett were perfect. I didn't like Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Sting's non binary child is VERY Ruth Wilson in the trailer. I thought Sting's non binary child was a male who went they them but Eliot Sumner is actually a female who is a they them and just happens to be called Eliot.

Grace Randolph has an early reaction to Ripley but not a full review. Review embargo is still on as the show is released to Netflix on Thursday, April 4th.

R79 I didn't like Philip Seymour Hoffman.

That was the point.

R81 paid cunt

This looks like dogshit. Watch the 60s or 90s versions. Hollywood casting is really horrible now. I’m just surprised that they didn’t make the characters….

Black and white is a risky choice. It's Gen Z kryptonite.