No surprise: “Ripley” starring Andrew Scott is terrible

There is dissent.

I liked Andrew Scott well enough as Moriarty.

But I'm done permanently with Andrew's "Bruce Willis Pursed Lips School of Acting" style.

He must have a huge cock and a warm seat on the casting couch.

[quote]the audience is introduced to Ripley, a petty thief who makes his living tricking patients of chiropractors out of their money

So he's a chiropractor then?

Excuse me?

Is this based on one of the novels? Dude looks 50.

Here's a rave on VULTURE:

The Guardian loved it too.

I am still not convinced, though, by a Ripley played by a menacing looking forty year old.

Is Freddie a woman in this?

Hollywood Reporter critic liked it.

Jade Matt Gwyneth and Cate at the height of their patrician good looks is a very tough act to follow. They didnt even try with this guy he looks like a film noir henchman.

Well, they obviously will have to jigger the story around a bit to fit Tom as an adult. I don’t mind, no need to experience exactly the same story for the hundredth time.

It’s not like it’s sacrilege to Highsmith, that toxic cunt.

All the reviews I’ve read say he’s spectacularly good in it. Haven’t watched, I cancelled my Netflix account, so cannot comment myself.

Current Rottentomatoes score with 22 reviews is 86% fresh.

[quote] “Ripley” starring Andrew Scott is terrible

For gleefully jumping to conclusions about how bad Ripley is based on one review, you should have to read some over-the-top positive reviews (that also may not be completely indicative of the quality of the show.) So:

[quote] This isn’t just one of the best Highsmith adaptations ever; Ripley is easily one of the best shows Netflix has ever done.

[quote] A full-blown noir masterpiece, Ripley is a masterclass in thought-provoking thrillers with substance and is thrilling from start to finish.

[quote] The finest thing TV has offered in many years.

Okay, balance achieved.

Netflix bought those reviews. “Critics” are hacks and grifters now who are desperately fumbling for their next premiere pass.

Torrenting as I type this.

It can't be worse than "Ratched."

I watched the first episode and agree that it’s hard to top the previous cast. Although Andrew Scott is excellent and can truly tell a story with just his expressions, I agree that he’s too old. I’ll continue to watch though, it’s very atmospheric and period.

Charmless? Ripley is supposed to be ice cold, not charming

R20, Ripley is of course supposed to be charming, that’s how he attracts his victims, not as a sombre looking guy which telegraphs is evil intentions with every glance.

FYI: Andrew is on "The Jimmy Kimmel Show" tonight (4/04).

The 1999 version with the sculpture of the Virgin Mary emerging from the sea was unforgettable. Pure Fellini.

Watched the first 2 episodes. It’s a masterpiece.

He does seem too old for the part, but I forgot about that after a while. It’s really good.

Heads may explode here to learn that Stings non binary child plays the Phillip Seymour Hoffman role. And let me tell you that kid has charisma to burn

It's just too heavy-handed and ominous in every way and far too slowly paced and do we really need 8 episodes to tell this story? I really miss the sunny Italy of the Minghella film in which you don't see every awful thing telegraphed right from the start. The black and white photography is beautiful on the scenery and props but not on anyone's complexion.

I'm 16 minutes into the first episode and Mr. Greenleaf's acting/line delivery whilst speaking to Ripley for the first time is the worst I've ever seen in any film or series. Just awful. I can't imagine an entire film crew standing around watching him do...whatever that was he was doing...and going, "Yep, we got it!" I had to watch that scene twice in order to believe my eyes and ears. I'm about to jump ship on the entire series because of just how it was. Seriously? Did the actor they'd hired for that part call in sick or something and they just grabbed some random crew member to fill in??

Aaaaand I just answered my own question! Indeed that guy ISN'T an actor, he's a fucking writer! And boy does it show. I wonder who he blew to get in front of the camera?? Luckily imdb says he's only in the one episode of this series so I suppose I don't have to abort after all, but JFC...whoever was in charge of that casting decision should be permanently fired from Hollywood. His "performance" just yucked up an otherwise nice-looking production.

Non-binary nepos need jobs too, R26!

Non-binary nepos need jobs too, R26!

I love how OP always finds the lone terrible review for a show when it’s already certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

OP is a miserable cunt, who enjoys cunting. Perhaps we should pursue discussion in a new thread.

Here you go

R30 and R31, can you give us your thoughts on nonbinary nepos?

R30 and R31, can you give us your thoughts on nonbinary nepos?

I refuse to watch a non hot Ripley.

I'll say this. Dakota Fanning is a little closer to Highsmith's conception of Marge as a galumphing, deluded fag hag.

I still have an episode and a half to watch but I don't get the hype. It's so poorly paced and just dull as fuck. If it wasn't Andrew Scott I would have bailed after one episode.

I’ve seen the first two episodes and think it’s absolutely terrific. Extremely faithful to the book as I remember it. Excellent casting all around. Scott is arguably a bit old for it but he’s otherwise perfect. A cool blank, intelligent, decent-looking without being memorable, who lets his deep yearning and envy break through from time to time.

It’s smart, adult, sophisticated, cerebral like the books. The digital B&W photography is staggeringly beautiful — who knew there were so many shades of black? Yet there’s a lovely silver sheen over everything. And despite the lack of heat and color in the imagery, it’s a very tactile and atmospheric series. You totally get the flavor of the urban landscape of NYC but also the sensuality of Italy.

I can’t recommend it more highly.

Another glowing review in Rolling Stone.

I liked Dakota Fanning in this.

I love how noirish it is. The cracks and rot of both Manhattan and the Italian cities shot in black and white create a glorious and gritty atmosphere.

That SRO he's in in the beginning is like something out of a horror movie.

I'm really digging it. It feels like an existential hell.

I like the creative way they "interpreted" the Italian newspaper headlines. The cinematography is definitely intoxicating. I also was fascinated by the use of props. I rarely think about that when I watch something. The pay phones, the infamous ashtray, the checks, the vintage ice cube trays, the pen...all well done.

Does anyone remember, in the original novel, was Tom already living a life of crime and corruption and grifting (as he is in this series) before he meets Dickie? As I recall, he's presented more as a blank guileless naif in NYC, and only springs into his misdeeds as they're so handily presented to him in Italy.

Yes he's a grifter before the Dickie adventure.

I wouldn't call it terrible. It's well-made, beautifully photographed Neo-noir.

But it is unsurprising, scene after scene. The previous two movies of this story really are superior.

After one episode I like it. Very different from earlier versions but well done. At least it has.my attention. But Purple Noon is the best version of the story.

If you take this version on its own terms it's pretty fabulous.

But can I really be the the first poster to note that Andrew Scott seems to be wearing a pretty awful wig or some kind of hair enhancement with a terribly fake front hair line?

Frankly - I would much rather see a tv series made about Ellen Ripley.

r40 your review is spot on. Well said.

I'm watching the last episode now and have been entranced with it since the first scene.

The only scene I thought was a bit unbelievable was the one with the wig...hard to believe he could have fooled that detective with such a ridiculous disguise. Particularly with those shark like eyes of his, which are like staring into the abyss against the b&w. Great casting too.

How did Ripley manage to set fire to the anchor's rope without setting the boat on fire, which is exactly what he does a few minutes later?

Otherwise, I'm loving it.

Also, the guy playing Dickie is not nearly attractive enough. He may have a patrician look but certainly not the sex appeal or charisma of Jude Law.

Clearly, shooting making his actors to look pretty is not a priority for Steve Zaillian. Johnny Flynn (Dickie) was a gorgeous hunk in EMMA in 2019.

I find it kind of dour and as presented by the screenplay, implausible. How could Dickie not see through this guy- from the get go and even more obviously as the story evolves. The take on Dickie as a charming superficial trust fund kid- seems more plausible than this version. I’m on episode 3. I would ghost anyone who put on my clothes and I caught impersonating me in front of a mirror. I would also be very unlikely to ask a guy who claimed to know me stay in my home! And yes, Scott is completely without charm- and so is the actor who okays Dickie.

He doesn’t look anything like Sigourney Weaver.

Just finished it. I liked it. I agree with others on this topic,,,,,,it’s beautifully shot. Impressive use of detail and it looks sumptuous. Andrew Scott’s age didn’t bother me. But Eliot Sumner is seriously miscast.

Wild to see travelers checks. I’d forgotten about them.

R58, yes! I remember how “rich” I felt with a book of travelers checks. I was 25 or 26 before I had a credit card (VISA) in the late 70s. I recall I had to have one as it was the only way to rent a car which I needed to do to drive the Pacific Coast Highway (in ‘79). I probably also had travelers checks!

I used them in the nineties

Whatever else you can say about Ripley, that fucker works HARD for the money.

That scene on and off the boat after he killed Dickie is gruesome.

Just finished the last episode tonight. LOVED IT!

Wanted it to go on forever.

It's not the book. It's not the Minghella film. But taken on its own terms it's fabulously entertaining.

I really liked it. I thought he looked great when in the last episode he disguised himself to talk to the inspector. I loved the look of this show, too.

Collider.com asked Maurizio Lombardi, who played Inspector Ravini, a question about Andrew Scott.

[quote] QUESTION: What were your favorite moments with Andrew Scott? What is the moment between the two of you that really stands out the most?

[quote] LOMBARDI: I don’t remember what I said in the scene, but I remember his eyes. I thought, “Oh, my God, he’s such a great actor. He’s unbelievable.” That moment is very clear to me.

(Anyone who has seen Scott in "All of Us Strangers" understands the thing about his eyes.)

Collider also asked writer/director Steven Zaillian why he cast Andrew Scott as Ripley.

[quote] ZAILLIAN: I was a big fan of Fleabag. I thought he was fantastic in it. I had heard him in the movie Locke. I hadn’t seen him in Locke because he didn’t appear. He was just a voice on the phone. But he made a complete character just with his voice, which I thought was kind of extraordinary. And then, there was his Moriarty (in Sherlock). Between those things, I just thought, “He’s the real deal, and it’s gonna take somebody like that to do this."

Anything gay? Besides Andrew Scott in real life of course.

Scott really punches above his weight.

I loved loved loved it. I also really liked the movie but so glad they went in a completely different direction and I have to say, way more faithful to the novels.

Scott is at first akward, strange, anti-social--and watching him learn the ways of the world and how to manipulate people is thrilling. The production design is beyond gorgeous - locations are absolutely stunning and perfect. His dark, black eyes are haunting - I was not convinced he wasn't wearing black contacts.

There's a lot of subtext that is left up to the audience. Is he in love with Dickie or just his money/persona? Is Dickie attracted to him? I watched with four other gays and half of us were convinced Dickie lets him stay out of bi-curiosity, the other half just thought he was an eccentric rich dude in the vein of the Saltburn people. Marge is always described as being somewhat of a frump in the books and while Dakota is an attractive girl, she's no GOOP and you definitely feel the imbalance in her relationship with Dickie.

The Sumner kid plays Freddie as an annoying twat but I have to say, it grew on me and I understand the choice to get as far away from Philip Seymour Hoffman as possible -- because who can possibly compare to that? He/she/it is a pretty good actor.

I adored the noir feel of it and the slow burn of the action. It's not wham/bam action - it's sophisticated and trusts the audience to go along for the ride. Even if you don't love the script, I think watching the gorgeous design and photography would keep you interested.

I loved it. Stunning photography, sets, use of art, architecture and locations. Closer to the book and omits some of the movie’s Hollywood dramatic embellishments and over simplifications (I also like the movie). The series very much makes the case for a world of beauty that Ripley would kill to live in.

[quote] I would ghost anyone who put on my clothes and I caught impersonating me in front of a mirror.

𝘈 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝑵𝑶𝑾?

I loved the series but I don't get why some of you are saying it's closer to the book. Is it really? Unless you mean the general darker tone?

Does Marge have all that time with Tom in Venice and does she behave that way? Is she suspected by Ravini as being involved in Dickie's murder? Is there a Picasso in the book? Is Caravaggio evoked so much? Is the Malkovich character in the book?

Mind you, I loved the series. And also the book.

Do you think there will be sequels? I hope so.

I've heard there will be sequels but that it may be a different Ripley in each season. I love the idea but I also hate the idea of one poor actor being compared unfavorably to the others!

R67, Imagine if Ripley met Bella Baxter!

It's closer to the book because it eschews the added Hollywood dramatic embellishments of the 1999 movie: the suicide of the pregnant local girl (which makes Dickie more of a bad guy), Dickie as the local lothario and jazz musician, the Cate Blanchett character (not in the book), and Tom's crush on Dickie as the real motivation for Dickie's murder. In the book Tom's motives are a more complex stew of class envy, material covetousness, desperation, desire and mishap. Tom wants Dickie's life. Or at least doesn't want to be pushed out of it.

The Malkovich character is in the second book — he is the “art dealer”/art fraudster that Tom goes into business with in Highsmith’s first sequel, “Ripley Underground,” which takes place six years after the events of the first book but was written 15 years later. I think it makes sense to introduce him in Venice in the last episode and it sets up any additional entries in the series.

I hope this series starts a Ripley renaissance, I’d love to see Zaillian and Scott do all the books. “Ripley’s Game” was my favorite, it had a really diabolical plot.

Does one need to read the books after The Talented Mr. Ripley to enjoy Ripley's Game, r74? I'd rather not read all the Ripleys, only the best.

[quote] I'd rather not read all the Ripleys, only the best.

Read 'em all, ya lazy slug.

Never mind. The paperback was just $11 on Amazon. Reader, I ordered it.

I’ve only watched one ep but will definitely watch more. So far, absolutely not terrible. It is a reimagining, and if you think Highsmith is sacrosanct, probably not for you.

Malkovich starred in 'Ripley's Game's at 49 and did not pass for younger. He was good, even if the film was better for its Italian locations than for its story and direction.

There's no reason Ripley has to be the 25 he was on the first Highsmith novel.

Have you all been over to the other Ripley thread, the "open-minded" one?

Comments are so much more interesting and intense over there.

There’s a real gap between “The Talented Mr. Ripley” (1955) and “Ripley Underground” (1970). For one thing, when we pick Tom up again six years later, he’s married to a woman and living in France. In the first book, Highsmith could hint at sexual ambiguity and homosexuality knowing that only certain readers would know what she was suggesting, but making those things explicit in a book 15 years later would probably have limited the book’s commercial prospects.

Ripley is still a sociopath, and there is still a certain sexual tension and perverseness in his relationships with other males, but the plots are intricate and inventive and slowly, gradually, Ripley becomes more of a hi,an being, capable of emotion, even compassion. It’s an interesting progression, and people will have different favorites, but the whole series should be read.

[quote]Ripley becomes more of a hi,an being

Pics please.

Sorry, “Human” being.

I like it so far - midway through first episode. Starting a bit late.

"It's just too heavy-handed and ominous in every way and far too slowly paced and do we really need 8 episodes to tell this story? I really miss the sunny Italy of the Minghella film in which you don't see every awful thing telegraphed right from the start. The black and white photography is beautiful on the scenery and props but not on anyone's complexion."

I love Minghella's version, and these are valid points. But since Minghella's version exists, I appreciate a different take and feel.

The style is glorious. Film noir is back! The guy playing Dickie's dad sucked. Apparently he's one of the writers of the show. First nepo babies and now the writers inserting themselves. I loved all the Italian actors.

The Vulture comments about the first episode are stuck on (1) not liking the black and white, and (2) Scott being too old. Not all the comments, but a good percentage.

I can put the age aside, and, while I'd love to see the gorgeous color of the ocean, the architecture, and the landscape, I don't mind the black and white.

I’m not sure I get all the hype. Scott is far too old, Dickie is a cipher (his American accent is also terrible and far too nasal), and the pacing is slow and…boring. The black and white also feels far too self-conscious in its attempts to convey a film noir feel. It also bleeds the show of the colorful and sun soaked glamour that should have Ripley spellbound by Dickie and his world.

I'm the poster who r85 quotes.

But I wrote that after only the first 2 episodes and became totally enamored with the series by E3 /E4, including the black and white photography and the slow pacing.

It could have gone on for 10 more episodes, I didn't want it to end. It was ultimately so different from the Minghella film (and the novel) that I was able to take it on its own terms and simply enjoy it. I do hope there are sequels.

Generally reviews are bought , the 3 star movies are usually better than the 4 star movies.

I finished it and thoroughly enjoyed it. Not perfect, but really good. An older Dickie and Ripley changed the dynamic from ambition and passion to sort of pathetic resignation - on both ends. I liked that Marge wasn't chirpy and was ALWAYS distrustful of Tom. It was a slow burn; I probably won't revisit it, unless there's a second season and I want to refresh my memory. The two LONG sequences of Tom trying to cover up Dickie's murder and sink the boat and Tom dealing with Freddie and cleaning all of that up - I thought that was brilliant. Those sequences were arduous, even flirting with boring at moments, but it drove home that what Tom was trying to accomplish wasn't easy and spoke to the lengths he'd go, or rather how the burden was foisted upon him. The black and white may have been a simple film hack to suggest "noir" or "serious", but while I didn't LOVE it (I would have enjoyed seeing some of those shots in color), I got used to it and came to appreciate it, especially given the tenor of the movie. There's life and joy in the Minghella movie - even despite the terrible things that happen. There's a little of that here - it's primarily dour.

R91 here. I will say that while I appreciate the different "take" on Freddie - seemingly non-binary, played by Sting's son, and definitely perfectly "fine" - I never really felt like he got under Tom's skin like PSH's Freddie did. I've read some comments online that definitely disagree - stating that it's a brilliant portrayal and they could feel Freddie needling Tom and Tom's uneasiness. But IMO, Tom never seemed quite as taken aback or uneasy as with PSH. He just seemed more annoyed than anything.

I think the concept of Freddie as weirdly non-binary, even (or especially) in 1961 was a brilliant notion, just not ultimately played out by the young actor as creepily as it might have been.

Played by Sting’s nonbinary daughter. Freddie is clearly a woman so the homoerotic subtext is gone.

R29, Steven Zaillian is who Lonergan sucked off. Zaillian wrote Gangs of New York, and Lonergan got to share credit with him. Lonergan is a barnacle whose entire "career" has been a gift. Has been "married" to the lesbian J. Smith Cameron for years.

I just finished watching the series, and I was distracted by the terrible performance by the father. I kept thinking, "Who is this piece of wood? Why is he in this?" Now it all makes sense.

Lonergan may be a lousy actor but as a screenwriter he has an Oscar and a BAFTA award.

She should stick to writing, then.

Kenny Lonergan is also married to actress J Smith Cameron who played Gerri on Succession. And Lonergan and Matthew Broderick have been BFFs since childhood.

Not that that really means anything .

Finished watching the series and it's excellent. Scott is fantastic. What bullshit that this series isn't any good. It's worth watching for the cinematography alone.

Lonergan isn't that good, but IMO it hardly matters. He's serviceable and doesn't appear that much. James Rehborn was miles better, but still, the not-great Mr. Greenleaf in this version doesn't downgrade Ripley for me.

Unfortunately though, Lonergan has a BIG scene in the first episode and it doesn't help launch this whole new take on the material. By the time he came back towards the end of the series, true....his lack of presence and skill didn't bother me nearly as much.

I actually was struck by the actress who played Dickie's mother Mrs. Greenleaf. It turns out she's the sister of John and Joan Cusack.

"There's life and joy in the Minghella movie - even despite the terrible things that happen. There's a little of that here - it's primarily dour. "

I meant "there's little of that here," no "a".

I liked the black and white cinematography. Also the series takes pains to show a lost world of SLOW and QUIET culture. There is time to listen to softer sounds and to watch daily life activities. Italy is shown belonging to the Italians. There is a distinct vibe that the American expats are fish out of water. I liked the small joke of the crime photographer polluting the gorgeous road outside Rome with his popped flashbulbs. That was really Italian