Ripley

I loved the 'Talented Mr Ripley' version, however, have enjoyed this just as much in a different way. I liked the fact that it didn't just try to copy the last version. I was a bit taken a back at the older Tom Ripley in this version but just decided that a longer time period had passed and got used to it.

I thought the actor playing Tom was fabulous and also the different Marge was streets better than Gwyneth Paltrow whom I thought was the big weakness in the previous version.

The black and white worked so well with this, more sinister, and moody version. Whilst the colour of the last version worked with the 'Talented' version which portrayed a much more extraverted and upbeat Dickie.

The negative element for me this time was Dickie. There seemed to be nothing to like about him and he lacked any charisma at all. He was a bit wooden and sexless to be honest. Last time, you felt that Tom had fallen so in love with the Jude Law version that he could not bear to be rejected by him or live without him. This time, I just felt that Tom wanted to take over his lifestyle but had no feelings for him. So, I think this version has fewer layers to it and something was missing.

Still, you just need to accept that this is a completely different version, and it is very watchable and intriguing. Certainly, the actor playing Tom IS the film. I think worth it just for his acting.

Andrew Scott gives a deeply neurotic and disturbing impression of one of the most beloved psychopaths in movie history. He's a great actor and he knows exactly what he's doing, sharp, precise, intense, on top of his acting skills.

Zaillian stretches the story out here, (sometimes a little bit too much in the last three episodes), taking 8 hours, compared to shorter former versions. I must say I like all versions, because Highsmith's original story is of genius quality, and it allows to open a lot of doors to different interpretations. I loved Alain Delon in the Rene Clement classic, as well as Matt Damon in the luscious Minghella version, but comparing the different interpretations in detail would take to long.

About this one: Yes, I loved that it was shot in atmospheric black and white (fantastic cinematography, every frame a piece of art!), I loved that this version was slow, I loved that it was so dark, I loved the sardonic humour.

I could have easily given this version 10 stars, but, I am sorry to say, the characterization of Freddie Miles didn't work for me here.

This Netflix series had the most sumptuous cinematography I've seen in a while. Nearly every shot was a work of art, a moment captured in time, a beautiful and sinister view into this retelling of the story of psychopath Tom Ripley. This version takes its time to unfold the story, and Andrew Scott is the perfect actor for the part. Having just seen him in quite a different role in "All of Us Strangers", I was reminded what a versatile and compelling actor he is (and of course great in "Fleabag").

While some have called the show "slow", I think our vastly reduced attention spans don't allow us to savor the unspooling of a narrative. I enjoyed the long shots with interesting camera angles and the use of black and white was a genius move, adding to the dark undertones of the show. It was definitely a successful passion project for Steven Zaillian, though I think the role of Dickie could have used an actor with at least a smidge of charisma, and fun fact, the spawn of Sting and Trudie Styler plays Freddie, though only with limited success. Regardless of any minor quibbles, I definitely recommend it.

In my mind, Alain Delon in Rene Clement's 1960 "Purple Noon" was the definitive Tom Ripley. Beautiful and totally amoral. Anthony Minghella's 1999 "The Talented Mr Ripley" had a bland but thoughtful Tom Ripley who felt and suffered. Minghella had a superb script, Gwyneth Paltrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Cate Blanchett playing riveting, unforgettable characters. There was also John Malcovich in a Liliana Cavani version, and although I've seen it, I don''t remember it, isn't that terrible? And the Wim Wenders version with Dennis Hopper doesn't count, good film, but it doesn't count as a version of Patricia Highsmith's novel. Now this. Ripley, the series. Hours long, in black and white. My first reaction was to rejected it but the truth is that I finish seeing it over a week ago and stayed with me, I can't shake it off. Why I wonder. And the reason is very simple. Steven Zaillian's version is truly wonderful. He has de-glamorized it. The whole thing. The story, the characters. Oh the characters. I was so used to see beautiful people playing them, in gloriously glamorous locations. This version is stark and Andrew Scott is like a replicant. No emotions, not even a hint of them. Invisible. As a consequence we do all the work. We gasp or look away. He just goes on. I know I'm going to see Ripley again, maybe not tomorrow but soon. I suspect you will too.

Although an utterly engrossing and fascinating story, what is so memorable about this is how it looks. Over the years films and TV shows have often tried to be arty, frequently resulting in pompous and cringy pretentiousness. Without wanting to sound pretentious myself, this is the truest most beautiful piece of art I've seen for many a year. It gives you that same awe inspiring feeling of amazement as when you walk into St Vitus Cathedral or see the Taj Mahal for the first time.

This is as close to perfection as you can get but to be critical and needlessly picky, I suppose it could be said that it feels a little slow at times. Audiences used to fast moving, all-action dramas might not appreciate this as much as some of us. That pace which gradually ramps up is necessary. It allows you not just to get to know Ripley (played brilliantly by Andrew Scott) but to get to know exactly how he feels and what he's thinking. The genius of this production is that we find ourselves rooting for Ripley, a thoroughly detestable human being. He's got no redeeming features whatsoever yet as much as we grow to passionately detest him, we find ourselves hoping against hope that he's going to get away with it all. It's so exceptionally well written that we're taken on the journey with him and all of his emotional experiences and anxieties.

Is it right to enjoy such unpleasantness?