Cool News
THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY review
This review may feel shorter than my normal reviews,
simply because I’m attempting to catch up a bit. Ok?
Cool.
I’ve been reading various critics and talkbackers and
some newsgroupers that seem to bitch about the
ending of THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY.
Since the ending of this film is so key as to why I love
the movie and why some people are hating the
movie... I feel a distinct need to discuss this aspect of
the film. Why do I write all this stuff and not just get
to it? Because... if you have not seen the film... then
perhaps you should simply skip reading my review till
after you have seen the film. And seeing the film is
absolutely a must for all big film fans.
The movie is immaculate. Filled with great
performances, storytelling, cinematography, score, art
direction, etc... However, this is a SUSPENSE type
of movie, which generally means you shouldn’t know
what the last page says. So... Go away... see the
movie... and get back to me later.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Alright, if you are reading this, either you don’t mind
spoilers or you have seen the movie... preferably you
have seen the movie.
There seems to be this rather strong feeling out there
amongst viewers of THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY
that the last murder is not needed, nor is it of any
great importance that we ever see Ripley and his
friend/lover on this boat.
If this is your feeling, then... frankly... you have just
completely missed the entire point of the movie.
The character of Tom Ripley is one of the most
fascinating homicidal pathological liars in the history
of cinema. He’s human. He doesn’t strive to lie, it’s
just when poised with a question... often times the
story in his head is more effective and tempting than
the truth.
Watch Damon in this movie.. his performance is to a
‘T’ perfection. Everytime he lies, he’s not moving
the conversation forward... he’s never truly in control,
it’s just that circumstances make it easier to simply
lie.
He never looks down the long road. Never seeing
where his actions or lies may lead him. Rather... he
will come to that hill when he meets it.
He didn’t go out on that boat with Dickie to kill him.
Tom isn’t a violent man, but he is a man of emotions
and whims... And Dickie pushed him to a point
where he couldn’t stop himself from... well... killing
him.
Same with Freddie. Ripley hoped that his lies would
protect not only himself, but Freddie too... When
Freddie finds out the truth... well, he is left with (to
his mind) only one logical point of action. Kill
Freddie.
Alright... so this brings us to the last murder.
Seemingly Tom Ripley has completely gotten away
with it all. He’s got the money, a boyfriend and is
sailing off into the sunset. A happy ending for a
despicable man.
But lies are a vicious circle, for all you Jennifer Jason
Leigh fans, and once in that circle you often times
have past lies coming up and biting you on the ass.
There was a point on the boat where, Ripley felt he
had the option of killing the curious gazelle, but then
he noticed three other party members up on the deck
that knew who he was.... Dickie right?
So, he goes back to his cabin... Tries to convince his
boyfriend to simply stay in the cabin with him....
But... well that’s not really a plan.
It is simply easier to kill one than four. Easier to be
Dickie on this boat than Ripley.
So, Tom Ripley, kills his lover, puts the memory in
that cellar of the past, behind a door he never opens,
and with no guilt or remorse, he continues with his
day. But along with that guilt and remorse, he must
place his own individual happiness behind that door.
Because, to have been Tom Ripley at that point in
time... well... it would mean the end of Tom Ripley.
And we can’t very well have that now can we.
This is reality. How pathological justification works.
It’s not malice, it’s convenience. And, for me... this
is why I feel that THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY is
infinitely more disturbing than a movie like
PSYCHO, which deals with someone who is... just
CRAZY.
We may, in our day to day lives, run into many Mr
Ripleys. Folks that find it easier to lie to you, than to
tell the truth. A world where ethical boundaries
breakdown from moment to moment.
Very rarely do we see pure malice and evil. And Mr
Ripley is simply one of the best liars around. He’s
out there... perhaps valeting your car, or taking down
your credit card number over the phone line, maybe
he’s selling your parents insurance over the phone
and getting their social security numbers, checking
account numbers and credit card numbers. Scammers
and liars exist all around us.
THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY shows us that while
they may never be caught. Their unending
punishment may very well be the hollowness of their
own existence.
And that’s why I love THE TALENTED MR
RIPLEY.
-
+ Expand All
-
Sterling review Harry...I also loved the ending....i loved the torment on damon's face when he's gotta do what he's do....he just knows there is no way out of being who he really is and it came across that he was repulsed by his own actions.....that was brilliance.
-
Ripley and his boyfriend weren't passionate enough to make the ending resonate with any sense of true loss and tradgedy for Ripley. But it was nice to see that the truth slipping from his own mouth was his undoing in a way. His slip may have cost him the only piece of honest happiness in his deceitful life. The ending seemed a bit drawn out. I liked the film overall, certainly better than that tedious mess of unsympathetic characters known as THE ENGLISH PATIENT
-
The movie fucking rules!
-
the talanted Mr rapley is a great movie, i mean, everything is so well done:the acting, the cinematogrothy,directing. i saw it twice and find it both facinating and dusturbing.with every tragedy or murder we see less and less hasitation and struggle(the 1st one takes about 4 min, the last one we just hear) and still some how tom rapley is human.....human cold blooded killer. i never knew matt damon was so talanted.he took a guant risk with this role and it's nice that people apreciated his character and the movie in general.
and to the previous poster about the english patient, yes indeed it was a stupid, boring and long movie. -
Apparently this film is going to do pretty well, which is a nice change from the crap that people usually flock to. Granted there will be some reaction to the homoerotic element of the film, but maybe this will overcome the uneasiness of those people. I personally think this is one of the best films of the year, and if I weren't so partial to films with a more resonant subject matter it might be at the top. The visionary part of me drools over the kinetic power of Fight Club and its 21st-Century style, while the classicist side is swept up in the beauty of a film made in the old-fashioned style. I hate to bring up old arguments, but we've all heard people talk about how The Green Mile is a classic for the ages. But what separates GM and Mr. Ripley is that the director is a true artist. I think this film would make Hitchcock proud, in that it is highly stylized but richly effective in its suspense. It is the reverse of the Hitchcock theme of an innocent trying to prove his innocence, but it uses the master's tools the same way. We are not shocked into emotion, but each time Ripley is about to be caught, Minghella tightens the screws again. I won't even bother getting into the breathtaking cinematography, the amazing use of various musical styles, Minghella's fabulous sense of composition and transition, Jude Law's lightning-in-a-jar performance, the Hitchcock/Elaine & Saul Bass-esque title sequence, and the truly disturbing ending, which dares to end things on a note that many people in the audience will take home with them to ponder over. This film delivers so much more than you expect to receive in a theatre for your $5 to $8. If there weren't so many other audacious films this year vying for awards, this time capsule from the Golden Age which contains a very contemporary study of identity and the nature of evil would be lavishly celebrated at every ceremony. Dig it.
-
I loved the ending,but did not enjoy Damon's performance.He was not up to this role.In the scene with Marge and the knife,he should have been threatening,and he was just uh, there.Jude Law was showing him how to act--he was great.
-
I went into this movie with all the reservations in the world, scared as hell, because I'm such a big fan of the book series. I thought that they made an excellent film (even though the ending is certainly not the ending from the book) and I was enthralled. My ONLY problem with the movie was the slight insinuation that this love affair with Dickie was what made Ripley a bit crazy. If you read the book, the opening sequence is not Ripley tinkling away at a piano, but him racing down the street being followed by Mr. Greenleaf, who Ripley believed was a policeman. When Dickie asks Tom in the movie what his talents were and he launches into that coy and disturbing imitation of Mr. Greenleaf to completely reveal to Dickie why he's there, that's the only hint that he's always been doing this kind of thing. Frankly, who cares about the book? I love the book and I LOVE the movie. I went and saw "The Cradle Will Rock" yesterday (and enjoyed the hell out of that, but generally because I'm a "theater person"), but passed the line to see "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and totally wanted to go see it again. I highly recommend the book series to anyone who liked this film. The first three books, at least, are the best of the series. Does anyone know if Damon will be reprising his role in "Mr. Ripley Under Ground" or is that project even being pitched?
-
The meeting on the boat with Blanchette's character, let alone her family, is unlikely,if unplausible in comparison to the rest of the 'logic' in the movie, and --Sorry folks-- I didn't get the sense of THAT much loss coming across from Damon over killing his lover. Is it Damon's inability to get that emotion across on screen or is it that there weren't enough scenes to convince me that there was anything special between them in the first place? It's a small quibble anyway. A good but not great movie--Greatness being stuff like: Being John Malkovich, Three Kings and Election. (By the way, Jude Law is easily the best thing in the movie. Acted rings around Damon.)
-
Two things impressed me in this movie: the daring performance of Matt Damon (who has certainly never played a part like this, and pulled it off magnificently) and the work of the director. The visual cues were wonderful -- one that sticks in my mind is where Ripley is eliminating the Dickie identity.. you see his reflection in the piano as one, and then split into two. One of those things that just makes me gasp with delight, and the film was full of them. Whoever did the opening credits deserves an award of some kind, that was one of the best I've ever seen. Very effective! That said, I found myself disappointed by the ending, it seemed to disrupt the flow of the film. I understand how it was essential to the Ripley character, but it was not essential to the story as they presented it. The audience I was in was squirming at that point, with the thought of 'GOD when will this movie be OVER', and the last sequence departed from our story which was Ripleys impersonation of Dickie. If they had started, as a contributor stated, with Ripley's backstory, then they would be justified in going on to show Ripley on the boat.. but they started with Ripley going after Dickie, and it should have ended there. Matt Damon did really carry off that scene wonderfully, but it wasn't necessary, imo.
-
is so horrible and haunting...The movie was close, very close, but flawed...ive known a number of Ripley types and they are rarely unintelligent...hollow,yes, miserable,yes,haunted,disturbed,misunderstood, yes, but never dim or daft...they always seem to take a certain amount of pleasure in their handiwork...in their own version of clever...Damon's Ripley was just a bit too soft, weve seen the film once, a week ago, and have seen much since, well be seeing it again...
-
I LOVE this movie. I couldn't say it any better than what Harry said in his review. Matt Damon gave such a terrific performance that it would be a crime to not give him a Oscar nomination. I was on the edge of my seat as to if Ripley would be found out for who he really was. In some ways, I feel sorry for his character (even if he was sick in the head). He summed up his motives when he said "wouldn't it be better being a fake somebody instead of a real nobody". If only Jude Law was also gay in the movie would he have had a perfect life. I love the feel and atmosphere of this movie. Italy never looked better (I really want to go there and visit one day). The score was great and so were all the performances. Jude Law was also really good. If he plays his cards right, he could become a major movie star. Paltro was just fine and beautiful as ever. The story was well written and the directing excellent. Anthony M. has another gem along with THE ENGLISH PATIENT. All in all, I LOVED The Talented Mr. Ripley. For those who havn't seen it yet, it's a must see.
-
The ending may have completed Ripley's character, but I'm not sure it was right for the movie itself. Maybe it was the mood I was in at the time, but Ripley, while I recognize how good it is and loved Damon's performance, dragged for me. It tired me out and not in a good way. I'm not a person who has a problem with long, slow, meditative movies. I love Magnolia, Thin Red Line, EWS, Fitzcarraldo, Barry Lyndon, etc, but I really felt the length of this one. That said, this is by far the best Damon performance I've seen and bodes well for him in the future.
-
I don't know. Maybe this movie missed me. Maybe I was in a shit mood. I wasn't expecting something else, though, because I've been following it for a long time. All of the performances were what they should have been, especially Jude Law and !Phillip Seymour Hoffman! The cinematography was cool, and the art direction and the production design, so I can't really find what it was. The only thing that really pissed me off was the editing, which no one else seems to have minded. The cuts between scenes were too sudden, I think, when the content of the scenes didn't really call for it. The embedding of jazz into the film, and its setting in Italy all called for it to be savored and absorbed, but nothing in the film allowed for it. So, if anyone else feels the same, please let me know. And I'd go for Kate Blanchet a hell of a lot sooner than going for Gwyneth Paltrow.
-
SPOILERS AHEAD********I thought the ending was great and agree with Harry's comments, but I have a question about Ripley's confrontation with Marge after she finds Dickie's rings. Ripley searched the bathroom for a straight razor, which he kept in his pocket, cutting his own hand. What was his intention? To kill Marge? That doesn't make much sense, seeing as how Mr. Greenleaf and the Private Detective were traveling with her. He knew that the BOYFRIEND (Peter???I can't remember his name) was coming back. What's the deal with the razor???I've been going over this for a few days and can't figure out his intentions. Any thoughts? By the way, I loved the title sequence of the film, where we went through many different adjectives to descibe Mr. Ripley before finally settling on "Talented."
-
I totally agree with your thoughts on the ending. I also think that maybe Ripley could have gotten away with it at the end without killing Peter. There may not have been a good chance but as he walked into their room I think that is what he was planning but then as the things from that door in his head started to slip out, he realized that in order to really love Peter and be with him, he would want to tell him everything that was locked behind that door and he would never be able to. That was justification to kill him. We already saw he was capable of killing people he loved (Dickie) and I can't understand when people say he went out on the boat with the intention of killing Dickie and that he was an evil character. Not once during the film did I consider Tom Ripley evil and Damon deserves a lot of credit for making this killer sympathetic. How could you not like Damon in this peformance? Does it make you uncomfortable that Damon actually made you sympathetic for a cold blooded killer and therefore, he was miscast? Anyways, Jude Law was mezmerizing as well and deserves all the stardom he will get. Gwyneth Paltrow did what she could while constantly being acted circles around by Damon, Law and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Definetly one of the years best.
-
Great Review, this wasmy favorite film of the year and I hope it wins the Oscar. It was the only film for me this year that brought together all the elements of great film craft. American Beauty was fun, but kinda too silly in so many places. I don't see how people can say it didn't seem like Ripley and Peter were in love. First off, most of their relationship occurs offscreen. Second, it's the fifties! imagine finding someone who shared gay affections back then. The entire film starts with a shot of Damon just after he's killed Peter. The image splits like a prison shattering into the titles. that's the whole film - he may not get caught but he is in prison. Look at the early signs of his personality - he gets caught playing the piano and darts like a scared rabbit. He sneaks a glance at an opera and when a patron catches him again he runs, totally repressed. This guy would never have a happy life, even if he could stay with Peter. It would have been easy to lie to Blanchett's character telling her he was always Tom Ripley, and just travelled under Dickie's name, and couldn't tell her the truth because of all the confusion. But he compulsively destroys his chances for happiness. You don't need a back story - it's all in Damon's face. A brilliant acting performance, and again, my choice for Best Actor.
-
Great review of what is probably the best film of the year, and certainly the classiest. The ending worked for my wife and I; when we discussed it over dinner we concurred that Ripley really did have no choice but to be stuck forever in the dark room that he had discussed with Peter earlier in the movie. Stroke of genius, too, to have the final murder scene only heard on the soundtrack. Damon was great in this, but Phlip Seymour Hoffman was better, and Jude Law...man, he was just awesome. He's gonna be a HUGE star. He was terrific in Gattaca and Existenz, too, but here he blew everyone away. When he died, the movie took ages to recover. Law's gotta be up for an oscar. One final note: what a great jazz score; the scene where Dickie and Ripley play in that Italian club rocked.
-
for those who are wondering, the main problem critics familiar with the book are having is that Tom Ripley is much more devious as Highsmith conceived him. He DOES premeditate Dickie's murder. The homoerotic element is much more subdued, but still implied. Minghella felt audience's would only sympathize with a killer to a certain level. By making his first murder a crime of passion, he puts us in his shoes enough for us to "understand" his subsequent actions. It would be cool to have a protagonist that is just a total maniac that is heartless, but I think the resonance of this film excuses the character change. As for the razor scene, I think Ripley's first instinct is to kill Marge because she knows to much. But because his reasoning changes from moment to moment, you're not really sure what he was "going" to do. It's better to have a razor and not use one than to need one and not have one. As for the ending, are you people serious when you say it's illogical or coincidental for Meredith to be on the boat? The film already established that she keeps popping up everywhere. As soon I saw the film moving into a new sequence on the boat, I KNEW she was going to be there. And what are movies, if not highlighting the coincidences and irregularities of life? That's what makes them interesting stories. The Three Colors trilogy was all about coincidences, synchronicity, etc. That's like. Stranger things have happened. Again, the film gets better the more you analyze it.
-
This movie gave me a lot to think about, that's why I like it so much. I have to admit, I was one of those people who was kind of disappointed in the ending, until I read your review. It gave me a different perspective, but I still don't understand why he would kill the only person that actually cared about who he was. This movie had brilliant performances, especially by Matt Damon. He deserves an Oscar!
-
I was so looking forward to reading your review of this movie. Now I cant cause your discussing the ending.....I hate you!!!....actually I dont...i'm just bitter...its alright...i forgive you. :)
-
What a beautiful, sad, disturbing movie. Initially I was expecting to be disappointed that Ripley wasn't portrayed as a calculating sociopath. But the more "sympathetic" Ripley and Damon's subtle performance was stunning at every turn. The ending was a classic unto itself as Ripley kills his one possible chance at happiness. I would take slight exception to Harry's comment on Psycho, though. First of all, comparing the two films is not really fair as they're almost entirley different in content and approach (a far more appropriate comparison would be Ripley and Strangers on a Train - obviously) As for Ripley being more disturbing than Psycho, I think the reasons that Psycho is disturbing is in the outright ghoulishness of Norman's existence (one image from Psycho that always haunted me was that creepy indentation in Mother's bed where her corpse had laid for so long) and the annihilation of Norman as an individual identity. I always thought the best part of Simon Oakland's famously long-winded speech is when he explains that while Norman was often all Mother, he was never all Norman. Even better is the way Hitchcock immediately undercuts Oakland's self-satisfied explanation of Norman's shizophrenia with Mother's interior monolouge that shows us that while Norman as a person may be incarcerated, "Mother" can never be dispelled so simply or comfortably.
-
I believe that the endind was perfect. You see tom and he is not happy when he should be. He has gotten away with it all. He has had to regretfully kill his "lover?" I sat in the theatre waiting for what would happen next. Then nothing the screan goes black and the lights from my point of veiw come instantly up and rip me from the world of the movie. I loved this movie and I would tell all that I know to give it a look.
-
Harry, I agree with you in full. I was hoping for Tom the whole time. I felt as if I had something in common with him. Great performance and great movie. The best of the year!
-
This movie was just too long and boring. There was no suspense and i just wanted it to end. Matt Damon was horribly miscast--he was just too dumb looking. The credits were great and Jude Law was awesome but hardly deserving of the generous compliments people are giving it.
-
I liked it. It's a good looking film. I would recommend that people track down and see "Purple Noon," the 60's french version of the story. It features quite a different ending, that for me worked better. But TMR is a fine film, albeit a little cold for me.
--SimFar -
hi Harry. i almost always enjoy your reviews, but rarely agree with them. your Mr. Ripley review was wonderfully well put, and conveyed my thoughts exactly. long live harry....
-
tom ripley was the guy at the begining of the movie with the hurt wrist who should have been playing the piano. He got the fake tom ripley to play for him and impersonate him. Then the old man who believed him to be tom ripely, sent him to italy to get his son.
-
I just don't get the appeal of watching a movie about rich kids that get whatever they want. So what if Tom wanted to be like Dickie. The only saving grace in that movie was Matt Damon, who creeped me out more than any one character has before. "Yippee! I'm Freddy! I have money! I like jazz! I can do whatever I want!" Who cares? All the other people in the move were the most boring people ever. I was actually happy they died. Same thing with "Thomas Crown Affair." Who cares if some guy is so rich that he has to steal stuff for fun.
-
I would have to agree that with "SilkenPanty" on the cleverness issue. Ripley never sat back and "saw that it was good". It was distracting that he was more like a little kid grinning to himself until someone noticed. I loved that movie, the ending was truly, truly horrifying. Jude Law, holy shit what is there to say except watch the movie. Gwyneth...well, she has the blond girlfriend thing down cold. Life imitating art maybe. Ass-numbing as any 21/2 hour movie, Ripley was suspenseful. There aren't many that let you say that truthfully. There is a fine line between anxiety to leave and anxiety to see what happens. Phillip Baker Hall as the investigator, can you honestly tell me that you didn't think, "busted you quasi-homo fuck"? Well, maybe not verbatim...Freddie getting whacked, Gwyneth and the razor (thought here on the razor, Borderline Personality Disorder has a symptom called self-mutilation, think The Abyss and Michael Biehn, where mutilation is used to concentrate) there was some kiss ass suspense, is he going to get caught, is Ripley going to bust out laughing at the ridulousness of what his lies have created. I just shut the fuck up now.
-
Actually, I feel that Ripley is far more devious in the books than in the movie. In the books, it appears that he is barely ruled by emotion, in the movie, that seems what he is ruled by most of all. I feel that the books paint a much colder portrait of Ripley. Still, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I very much enjoyed the movie.
-
Jan 03, 2000 12:14:03 PM CST
Jude Law&John Davenport outstanding, the rest a disappointment
by cthulu
Damon, Paltrow, Blanchett, were all miscast. Either that or they just weren't trying. I didn't believe any of their characters were actual human beings because the actors playing them kept losing their footing. Even Phil Hoffman, one of the best actors this generation has, phones his part in. There wasn't a single consistent thing in any of the above performances. Directing, editing and script seemed spotty too but with all that bad acting it was tough for me to tell which came first, the chicken or the egg, HOWEVER... Jude Law is a truly amazing presence. Anytime he's on screen, the movie comes to life. And after Dickie dies it grinds to a halt, with little sparks of magic thanks to John Davenport (Ripley's lover), but not enough that can save it. Too bad, because there seemed to be an interesting story that got muddled up here. I'm a big fan of Highsmith's (NOT Hitchcock's) "Strangers on a Train." Think I'll go check out the book...
-
I generally enjoyed the movie, but thought it moved too slow. I agree w/ the Jude Law comments. I thought Damon did a good job. He wasn't supposed to be spectacular-he was the guy on the outside looking in. If he was as fabulously fun as Dickie, he wouldn't want or need to be Dickie. My main comment, however, is about Cate Blanchett. I thought she absolutely hit the "American heiress" role. I was completely delighted every time she appeared, so much so that I "forgot" she was a real person outside her role. I can't say the same for Gwyneth Paltrow-she seemed to be playing herself, or her mother. Did anyone else think Blanchett was just amazing in this role? Maybe I'm biased, I thoght she was robbed of Best Actress last year.
-
Just saw 'Ripley' earlier today and enjoyed it. I didn't mind the ending, but it could've been tighter. I've never read Highsmith's novel, so I don't know her ending. Tom sitting alone in his cabin after killing Peter had no resonance for me. I was also disappointed that in this very Hitchcockian film, the strangulation, Hitchcock's preferred form of murder, was not shown. Could I change the ending, this would be it:
Tom enters cabin and wastes little time in joining Peter on the bed. They begin talking, Tom strangles Peter from behind with little delay. The strangulation would be shown graphically (victim's blue face, bulging jugular, spittle from the mouth) as the murders of Dickie and Freddie are graphic. Cut to Greece over the echoing of Peter's last sounds. We see a group of men at a club or bar of some sort. A tall, handsome Grecian introduces friend A to friend B. Friend B is Tom who replies "Peter Smith-Kingsley, nice to meet you". Fade to black.
What is most striking about Tom is not his humanity as it is so similar to an average Joe's, but the distinctive kind of humanity Tom has. It's a slight one, one which allows him to fill his shell of a life with that of another. I haven't read the other talkbacks - my apologies if I'm repeating info or ideas.
-
Hey Harry,
First time doing the talk back thing so to start, great site. I apologize if this is too long. First off, I liked this movie alot. However, I am one of those people who was disappointed in the ending and it is not because I missed the point of the movie. On the contrary. Going in, I had no idea what to expect, having no prior exposure to the book. I think that if you polled those who liked and disliked the ending, you would find that those who knew a little about Ripley ahead of time had an easier time accepting the movie's conclusion. In the movie, up until the end, Ripley had not killed anyone who hadn't in some way looked down on him or treated him as if he were insignificant. Even Margaret (I think that was Paltrow's character's name) was starting to treat him as if she had had enough of him, so it was at least beleivable that he would contemplate killing her when he took the razor before confronting her. Therefore, to someone who only knows Ripley from the movie, each killing, up until the end, was, in a warped way, justified. We could understand where Ripley was coming from even if in our own lives we wouldn't have behaved the same way. From what I have read since seeing this movie, Ripley is much more of a sociopath in the book. The killing of Dickie was planned ahead of time in the book. The problem with the movie is that it wants to have it both ways. It earns sympathy for Ripley by making his prior murders somewhat understandable, and then pulls the floor out from under us at the end by having him kill the only character who had treated him as an equal when he was simply being Tom Ripley. To someone unfamiliar with the book, this made no sense. It wasn't a terrible ending, it just didn't seem to fit. Given how clever Ripley had been at talking his way out of other situations where it seemed he would be caught, it's hard to beleive that he couldn't talk his way out of this one. After all, Blanchett's character wasn't exactly a genius. I realize I might be rambling on, but to sum up, I think the movie cheated by building false sympathy for this character. I don't know if this was done to make it more commercial or to make the ending more surprising, but I for one would have had an easier time with the finale if Ripley of the movie were more like Ripley from the book.
-
First, Truly, Madly, Deeply, a "real" ghost story, then The English Patient, about a dead man in all but name, and now The Talented Mr. Ripley, about a man who is only alive when living through someone else. Tom Ripley could glide through a room, and like a ghost, never be seen. Dickie Greenleaf goes through a room, and nothing is left unchanged. Only at the end, when Tom Ripley is actually a person, then his house of cards comes falling down. Tom Ripley is condemned to be a ghost. This was a brilliant movie, and Matt Damon should get ready for Oscar night, because it's between him, Jim Carrey, and Kevin Spacey. The new school has arrived. Jude Law was brilliant, as was Philip Seymour Hoffman and Cate Blanchett. Gwyneth Paltrow, however, seemed to be trying too hard, especially with her final scenes with Damon. As for those who thought it boring and too long, I just don't get, because this movie had me from frame one, and I literally didn't realize it was almost three hours long until I left the theater and it was dark outside. This goes into my top 11 films of the year - top ten just doesn't cut it for this year.
-
TTMR was a good film, a definitely attempt for Minghella to do a Hitchcock-esque film, and I understand why Ripley killed John in the cabin (the minute you saw the beige tie around Ripley's neck, you knew what was going to happen) but the one big plot hole for me was the connection with Dickie's dad and Tom. Dickie's dad told Tom that he was giving him a boat load of money (trust fund, something or other) which would have in essence given Tom the life that Dickie had. I know the whole reason behind Tom killing the guy in the cabin because he could have known too much, but that little plot detail with Mr. Greenleaf didn't seem to fit in with Ripley's actions. Did Ripley really want to live Dickie's life? Probably a character choice for the plot's sake, but I can't help but wonder what kind of film it would have been if Ripley had been able to pull off being Dickie and Ripley at the same time in order to get Dickie's cash. The whole film really is a Hitchcock knock off, because all Hitchcock films tie things up for you in the end so that you know what happens to the main characters in the end (or at least you have an inkling). With this film, Ripley started and ended in the same place, and there was no discussion of whether or not he got away with it. The ending does add to the suspense of it, and I thought it was a good movie, but many people I know who saw it couldn't wait for it to be over. Judging from the people in this Talk Back, they were not alone.
-
Great reviewing style and wonderful allusion to a fine, fine film.
-
This film begins promisingly enough. A jacket leads to a mistaken bio which leads to a less than chance meeting. Tom Ripley alters his own identity to become more like his prey, Dickie Greenleaf. Jude Law is radiant as Dickie and Marge's (Gwenyth Paltrow') comment about him being "the sun" is apropos. Yet when "the sun" is gone, this film loses its glow. Matt Damon is good as Tom Ripley but as Dickie Greenleaf, he's just way too ordinary. He never quite has the psychopathic intensity that the film needed. There were a few missed opportunities as well. When Marge comes to Dickie's door after his disappearance, Tom, on the other side of the door, could have used Dickie's voice to throw her off the trail. He was shown mimicing others when it didn't matter. Why not use it when it does? Also, why have Marge discover the rings off camera? Wouldn't it have been more effective to show her looking for a needle and thread and come upon the rings? For a film that has been billed as a thriller there was very little suspense. It appears that Anthony Minghella, a thoughtful and intelligent filmaker, just doesn't know the ingredients to a good thriller. The movie was beautifully filmed, and nicely acted but it lacked energy. It would have been better if Ripley had been more menacing, more manipulative, more sly. He was a terrible liar. He should have been better at it. And Ripley's fate should not have hinged on the incompentence of the police, both Italian and American. No one questioned the landlady? I enjoyed the scenes of Italy (who wouldn't?) but as a thriller it was less than thrilling.
-
Didnt want to see TTMP cuz the preview sucked. A review said Hickockian with unbelievable twist and surprise ending. Stating there will be a twist is reason enough to disembowel a reviewer for giving it away - but it made me see the flick. Thought movie was incredible - until the end . . . where's the freak'n TWIST! What, he got away? sorry, that doesnt do it. HERES THE TWIST I FULLY EXPECTED BY THESE CLUES . . . Dicky always had hard time cashing checks cuz of photo not looking like him, didnt want to go back to father, far as we know nobody that knew him back home knew him in Italy. I expected Mr. Greenleaf to go identify Dicky's washed up body and say . . . "who the hell is that? - its not my son." Aaaahhhhhhh . . what a twist. "Dickie" was also imposter. Maybe real dickie playing the sax in some quiet nightclub, I dunno, but the ending sucked, was out of character as already stated in above posts.
-
I understand why Minghella made changes in Ripley's character, and while I don't necessarily agree with them, they didn't impede my enjoyment of the film. I felt almost like a split-personality as I watched it, because despite my feeling that it's a marvelous film--well acted (particularly Jude Law--I'll jump on that bandwagon as well) and beautifully shot by John Seale--I prefer Highsmith's original treatment of Ripley. In the book, he gets off on what he does and is more deliberate, cold blooded and clever in committing his crimes. Perhaps audiences would have been put off by finding themselves identifying with a completely cold-blooded character--as one does when one reads the book--which may be the initial reason for humanizing the character for film. On any count, Minghella, in order to humanize Ripley, lets him be led more by his emotions and therefore simply stumble into a good number of his crimes. This certainly works to make him more sympathetic, but it also works against him in that by bumbling into so many of his crimes, Ripley becomes almost pathetic, succeeding more with dumb luck than with skill. My sister, who had not read the book, left with this impression as well, and in fact actively disliked Ripley more so than if he'd been a deliberate criminal. Again, all my criticisms aside--I loved the film, and understand why changes were made. Therefore the ending DID work for me, as it was well in keeping with Minghella's handle on the character. It's tragic--that in order to survive the web of lies he's spun, Ripley's only option is to kill the only person who loves him for who he is. I disagree that the only conclusion is that he'll be caught---I think the tragedy is that Ripley WILL get away with this one, and he knows it That's a tragedy for him as well, because he'll be alone, and he'll never be able to stop the act--stop looking over his shoulder and remembering where he is in the game. For this reason, the film and the book work well for me as seperate entities. (And Mugwump--the book "The Talented Mr. Ripley" was written in the 50's and predates "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" by a good 10 years. Unless, of course, you were being facetious--in which case I've just been hooked.)
-
To Mr. Walker - I agree that the thought of an ordinary man committing a murder is a frightening prospect. It is that stranger within us that can be truly horrifying. Unfortunately, in this film, that haplessness removes most of the suspense. Tom's transformation begins with calculation. He learns jazz in order to ingratiate himself to Dickie in some way. His motives are unclear but we assume he has some illwill in mind. But this sly, manipulation is not fully explored. Minghella couldn't give us a sociopath that was likeable so he turns Tom into a victim that reacts instead of acts. I think this is the less interesting approach. It would have been more intriguing, and more difficult, to reveal him to be sinister, yet get us to like him in spite of it. In the way Hannibal Lechter lures Clarice into his confidence, on a less exaggerated scale, of course.
I enjoyed the film, but I didn't see it as a thriller.
-
Loved the movie. Agree with Harry's assessment. The only thing that didn't sit right with me is why Dickie's father just let Tom go. Marge knew the truth, it seemed like the detective and Mr. Greenleaf knew the truth, so why let Tom off the hook? Anybody....?
-
Riddley Walker -
I do think you are right about Ripley being an opportunistic sociopath. He wasn't skilled. He didn't seem to get a real high from lying. He looked very uncomfortable doing it. At first I saw him as a guy who was trying to get a little of "the good life" for himself. Yes, he didn't want to kill Dickie. He loved/idolized him. I perfectly understood his reaction to Dickie's truth about him. But after he kills Dickie, and assumes his persona, he did such a lousy job of it, that I found my interest waning. He didn't look or behave much differently as Dickie as he did as Tom. Except for the clothes I saw no transformation. But I think I was supposed to. Dickie was so luminous that he'd really have to rise to the challenge to pull that off. When Freddie says, "nothing about this place looks like Dickie, except you," he still looked like weak, little Tom. Of course Tom almost getting caught in a lie was nerve wracking, but not much beyond that for me. The Italian police inspector was on to him, but his suspicions are dropped when the incredulously stupid American PI is introduced. That bugged me. I haven't read the book either, but apparently Tom is much more devious. That is what I would like to have seen. I just love a good villian. -
You are dead on, this movie was perfect...
-
Harry, I completely agree with your brilliant review of TTMR. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person who loved it. I went to the movie with six other people, and after the movie, all they did was gripe about how long it was, how boring, and how pointless. That's when I chirped up with, "I thought it was cool!" I'm a freak now among my family and friends. Anyway, ditto what everyone has said about Matt Damon's surprisingly great performance and Jude Law's unbelieveable presence. I also concur with the person who said that his/her favorite shot was of Ripley's reflection in the piano. Genius! The title sequence was beautiful, as many other people have mentioned, and I think the ending was apropos. Ripley will never know happiness without letting someone really know who he is, but if anyone ever really knew, his life would be over (no matter whose life he's trying to lead.) His pain in the end was excrutiating to watch. One final comment - I understand the frustration of fans of the book. I'm an avid reader, and I've seen too many of my favorite novels changed beyond recognition for the screen. Usually the movie is horrible, though. What the book's fans should do is judge the movie on its own merits, instead of comparing it to the original story. Whether it is true to the books is not most important. What is most important is that the final result is stunning on its own. From what I've read about the books, too, I have to say that I think the changes made for the screen were for the better. I like the idea of a subtler, more sympathetic Ripley. That makes the movie all the creepier. Not only that, but it was good to see the homosexual aspects played up instead of only being implied. It's rare to see a movie dealing with male homosexual relationships, and in such an honest way. I really believed that Tom cared for Dickie and loved Peter. I don't feel like such a great person for sympathizing with a killer, but that's one of the greatest things about the movie. I like a film that makes me think and question what I know. Bravo to everyone involved in the film, and great job on the review, Harry!
-
Granted Damon gives a great performance ,but this movie sucks and everybody i know who has seen it agrees with me. That includes over twenty people. Frankly this movies is way too gay for a mainstream movie and i was terribly dissapointed in it. I was looking forward to Damon and Paltrow, not Damon and a cast of gay sailors. I also think that anyone who doesnt think Ripley was 100% homosexual should have their head examined. Its his feelings about his homosexual desires that lead to his killings and of course the age old not wanting to get caught theory. All in all it was just too gay.
-
Because I totally dig this review. Right on, Knowles!! I loved this movie, but.....even though Matt Damon did a very good job, I still wonder how great it could've been if a better actor played Ripley. Ed Norton for example. Leo Dicaprio?
-
to the guy a couple posts ago: get over your issues. The movie sucked because it was too gay? You are pathetic. I can see where you may not want to see a movie about a bunch of drag queens, but this film is not about being gay, why people are gay, how gay people act, or how gays are persecuted by society (although your post was an example). Do you think gay people don't go to any "regular" films because most characters are heterosexual? It makes no difference. If Ripley's being attracted to Dickie and/or his life wasn't more interesting to you than appalling, you have some growing up (mentally) to do. Make sure you don't go see The Hurricane either because it makes a hero out of an African-American! The nerve! As for the intelligent people on this talkback, I offer this: The entire film is meant to be from Ripley's point of view. You may question the method, but that's why you don't see stuff like Marge discovering the rings. You are meant to empathize (not necessarily sympathize) with Ripley. Even the conversation between Marge and Dickie about Tom is overheard and overseen by Tom. So in that sense, it may not be a "thriller" (definition of thrill: cause sudden sharp feeling of excitement), it definitely has suspense. You either don't know what's going to happen next, or you don't know how Ripley will get out of ominous circumstances. But to call this just a genre film is unfair, like calling The English Patient a war-torn love story. It is a meditation on identity, an art film of beautiful, mysterious, and chilling images. The scene in the opera (which I think is Onegin, coincidentally recently filmed by Ralph Fiennes and his sister) where the man is shot and the red sheets are pulled out from under him to simulate blood had more impact on me than all the blood & guts we usually see splattered across the screen. The violence in this film is so true and real and blunt we feel each killing harshly. Minghella's ability to do that in this day is amazing. I suggest those of you who liked Ripley take another look at The English Patient (or read the book), which is just as intricately and superbly crafted.
-
Mat Damon let's down this beautifully crafted film. He doesn't suck you into the story. He is a one dimensional actor. This left me cold I'm afraid.
-
I saw this film two nights ago. I agree it's got great scenery. But something about it bothered me. I think Damon is good, but totally, constitutionally WRONG for the role. In fact, I thought if they swapped the Brits and the Americans roles that it would be more approprite. Paltrow should have been the rich American. Blanchett should have had Paltrow's role. And visa versa with the guys.
I have to admit that I got a bad feeling from the "gay serial killer" aspect of this film too. Where is subtlety?? Excellent films let the audience fill in pieces of the puzzle themselves. By explaining Mr. Ripley's pyschosis as some sort of gay-repressed thing the film takes the easy way out. Which makes me angry. As does the ending. And Damon's performance smacks of Frat Boy getting away with murder -- that's what I mean by being completely wrong for the role. Jude Law should have played Ripley. Damon would be much more believeable as the successful playboy.
Please note: I think Damon did a great acting job -- he worked very hard, so I'm not knocking him as an actor. I think the CASTING is wrong here. Damon took the job (wouldn't you??). But this is an example of how money and box office receipts effect film quality. -
I'm terribly sorry that "jd233"'s lack of security in his own masculinity prevented him from enjoying a fine film with homosexual undertones. Much needed therapy aside, that's a pretty shallow basis for judging the quality of a film. "mattiemat", you make an interesting point about the casting, but given the Minghella's interpretation of Ripley, I think that Matt Damon is just fine in the role. However, had Minghella pursued the Ripley of the book, Jude Law would have been able top play the hell out of it (and I would have loved to see it). I consider both Paltrow and Blanchett fully capable of playing both female roles, although Blanchett is a much more flexible actress and could probably make the switch more successfully. Paltrow and Law LOOK great together, on any count.
-
Perhaps Anthony Minghella did not intend for his picture to be billed as a "thriller." But there is no question that it was marketed as such, and Patricia Highsmith writes thrillers so it is a logical assumption. Also, the music was unquestionably "thriller" music, reminiscent of "Vertigo." Whether Minghella was working within a genre is for us to decide, and I choose to think he was but didn't quite pull it off. Lazarus Long is correct the movie is from Tom's point of view so having Marge find the rings off camera fits. But I still say that it would have been better to have Tom come upon Marge in his room, the rings in hand, rather than have her interrupt his bath. It just lost impact there. And his declaratin of love for Marge just did not work. Again, he was botching it, big time. I understand that Matt Damon was doing what the script called for, but it would have worked better if he had tried to be more convincing. I also think that Tom dropping his towel should have been deliberate, not accidental. It should have been a power play on his part. I also found the scene in the opera, (foreshadowing Peter's death) strickingly beautiful. The film was filled with memorable images, and that is one reason I enjoyed it. But I wasn't on the edge of my seat. ps jd233 isn't even worth responding to.
-
Riddley is right - I wanted to change the script. A fault of mine, I'm afraid. But I just wanted to see Tom take charge. He didn't make overt power plays, but in some instances he was able to manipulate things. He gets Marge, Peter and Meredith to all meet at the cafe. He watches from a somewhat powerful, omniscient vantage point. So why not have him become more powerful? He killed Dickie. Shouldn't he have consumed some of his power, his charisma? Isn't that what he was ultimately trying to attain? Surely it wasn't merely the fine clothes and grand lifestyle he was after.
-
Does anyone else think that maybe Tom's musician friend at the end didn't die? At the every end, we see Tom sitting on the bed, while we hear him killing the guy in an audio flashback. We are watching Tom from the closet. Isn't that a hand that reaches up and slowly closes the closet door, as if he didn't succeed in killing him, and now he's going to turn Tom in? Did anyone else see this?
-
The first time I saw this movie, I loved it. However, I did not fully understand the ending. It's not that I didn't like it, I loved it. I just needed more explanation. The second time I saw it, Tuesday, I love it even more and will not hesitate to put it on the top of my list of the best films of 1999. Now I understand the ending.
A few comments. First, whoever the fuck said that the movie sucked because it was too gay, I would just like to say "Kiss my ass, bitch!" It's right-wing motherfuckers like you that continue to plague this country. Uh...no offense or anything.
Another thing. On the post right above me (or a few later if I took too long to write this) Digistory says he saw a hand in the final shot closing the closet door. I'm not here to prove you wrong Digistory. Actually, I'd love it if it was really his hand. However, you could be mistaken, or it could be a technician on the set closing the door for Minghella's effect of Ripley's prisonlike life.
Finally, I'd like to comment on the commentary that Tom Ripley is not his real name, but the name of the guy who gave him the blazer at the beginning. Once again, I'm not here to prove you wrong, but to bring some information to your attention. When Philip Baker Hall (the American detective) is talking to Ripley on the balcony in Venice, he mentioned that he researched the name Tom Ripley. He says no record of that name showed up on the Princeton records, but he found that the name belonged to a poor man, Damon. Now, I would LOVE it if Tom Ripley was not his real name, but I just don't think that's true. Also, although I haven't read the books, I know one of them mentions the name Ripley again in its title. This doesn't prove anything, but allows me to say that his name most likely (MOST LIKELY) is Tom Ripley.
Wonderful movie. Thank you Harry. Thank you for your Ebert review. -
There was so much to like about this film, not the least of which is the challenging nature of the subject matter. Not having read the book, I think Minghella was able to allude to many interesting and not-too-oftenly-seen subject matters, but ultimately there is a weakness in Tom Ripley's character that cannot be ignored or overlooked by the film's end. Images tell the story in good cinema and the images in this film were quite strong, but Minghella relies heavely on close-ups of his characters to convey their characters rather than allowing the audience to see, through discourse and action, who these people really are. Tom's sexual confusion, or perhaps outright homosexuality, is illustrated only halfway through the movie. This is a HUGE part of Tom's character and yet it's meant as neither a revelation or a plot point to describe why he does what he does. One never gets the sense at the outset that Tom is sick to his stomach at the prospect of being poor all his life, that he cleaverly manipulated a meeting with Mr.Greenleaf knowing that money would come of it and that he didn't really love Dicky, but in fact, loved the idea of being Dicky. The movie plays both sides in all of this, portraying Tom as both gee-shucks lucky and conniving, but which one is it? He can't be both sincere and loathsome at the same time. Minghella's answer is that he is neither one or the other but somehow both at the same time, a contradictory stew of motivations kept just out of reach from the audience. Well, it never quite works and either Damon couldn't pull off what Minghella wanted or Minghella wanted something that made for overwrought cinema, in interviews I've read I tend to side with the latter notion.
-
I think you're right on about the importance of the ending. I think you have to also acknowledge the most important words spoken by Tom Ripley just before the last murder. He said he'd rather be a "fake somebody" than a "real nobody" - and, by seeing Meredith on the boat, he was able to continue the "fake somebody" routine and send Tom Ripley back to the proverbial basement. (Remember where he lived in New York and the very, very steep stairs he had to climb to get up to the street ?) Of course, we don't know what happened in his life to make him despise the "real nobody" - partially internalized homophobia, I'm sure.
-
Bomb ass flick. Very surprised as to how good it was. My only problem was with the inconsistancies revolving around Dickie's cash flow. Why did Dickie need Tom's scrilla to buy an icebox or a car? Later we see Tom take out thousands out of Dickie's account. Why? How? Anyone got a theory or do I need to watch this again?
-
I just came back from TMR. It was well shot, but that was about it. How stupid are these people? Nobody was able to figure out what was going on? Freddy saw through Toms act, but the detective didn't? O.k. It all reminded me of the Cop in Dellamorte Dellamore who never noticed it was Dellamorte doing all the killing. And hey, what happened to his Toms fiance? He got letters from her. How did he pull that one off? All in all, it was o.k. Best movie of the year, no. Top 30, no.
-
I thought this movie was passable, despite several problems. I've read the series, and I was expecting something a little different.
A) Despite the length of the film, why wasn't Ripley's alibi explained a little better? There was ample time to do so.
B) The addition of Meredith was actually pretty good. It certainly made for a ton of tension when she met Marge and Peter at the cafe. I was squirming in my seat, much like the books had me doing.
C) I think the addition of Peter was totally unecessary. I understand Minghella was trying to teach us a "moral" in that our lies come back to haunt us. But if he wanted to that, he should have picked a book with a built-in moral and left this one alone. The genius of Ripley is that he is wholly amoral, and yet we inexplicably like and root for him. Why did he think audiences would only root for him up to a point, when it's already been proved that audiences like Ripley plenty, based on the popularity of Highsmith's novels? The greatness of Ripley is that he always gets away with it. Narrowly, but he does. The added twist at the end really only sets things up for a sequel (someone sooner or later will notice Peter missing), which wasn't necessary since Highsmith has 5 books Minghella can choose from for the next installment.
Overall, if you haven't read the book, you'll probably like the movie just because you don't know how far this movie misses the point. If you have read the book, I think you'll find it to be fairly entertaining, with some disappointing changes and a few holes. -
I loved this movie. The performances were spot on, the direction and writing were great (as expected from the talented Mr. Minghela), and the cinematography...was it not gorgeous?! Don't we all want to go to Italy now? One common critics' complaint has been that Tom Ripley (Matt Damon)is not evil enough, i.e. he should have been manipulative and malevolent from the start. They say that a consistently cold and calculating Ripley would be more true to the novel. As I haven't read it, I don't know about that, but I thought Tom's frequent shifts from a somewhat bumbling, likeable guy into a twisted, clever sociopath made for a very interesting inner turmoil. I would catch myself rooting for Tom, hoping he wouldn't get caught, and think "Wait a minute, this guy is a creepy murderer, I don't actually want him to get away with it". This made the whole viewing experience much more complex and interesting than it would have been had Tom simply been an evil, unlikable character. Matt Damon did a very good job in this tricky role, thankfully never shying away from the darker aspects of the character. Gwyneth Paltrow was lovely as Marge, the moral heart of the film, and Cate Blanchett did equally well. The real standout performance, though, was turned in by Brit actor Jude Law, who has long been a big name in his homeland, and is finally getting some well-deserved recognition over here. His Dickie Greenleaf is sexy and charming, if very spoiled and rather unfeeling at times. But he's really not a bad guy, as Marge makes it clearly known in one line: "There's a side to him, when our heads are on the pillow, I know no one else sees, that's so tender", and you can't do anything but believe her. I certainly missed him when he was gone. Wow, I've gone on for quite a time haven't I now? I hope this isn't too long and boring. Can you tell I wouldn't mind doing this for a living? Anyway, really, everyone should just see this movie! It's great!
-
Do yourself a favor a rent a much better adaptation of the Patricia Highsmith novel. It's entitled "Purple Noon" aka "Plein soleil" directed by Ren
-
Well Harry, I will start off with saying some positive things about "The Talented Mr. Ripley." The locations are beautiful. There are very good performances all around this movie. Especially Matt Damon and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Defintiely one of the most underrated actors in movies today).
However, "The Talented Mr. Ripley" bored me to death. This movie took just too long to finally get to where it was going. By the way, how many endings are we supposed to sit through?
"The Talented Mr. Ripley" is more than thirty minutes shorter than "The Green Mile" but feels much longer. By the time in the movie where Marge finds Dickie's rings, I had lost all interest in the story and was just praying for it to end.
Patricia Highsmith's novel kept me interested the entire way from cover to cover. The same thing did not occur here.
Anthony Minghella needs to hire a film editor. I don't think the world needs another lengthy epic from him.
-
Well, you could argue that a film is adapted so it will get people to read the source material. Or, you could say that one adapts material to make it into a great film, separate from the book. The person from a couple posts ago said that a lot of people read the book and were okay with Ripley's character. I think we can agree that the book reading public of the 1950's (and beyond) is much different from the film going public. I don't think Minghella was trying to sell out to Hollywood; I've read several interviews with him and his motives are clear to me. He wasn't trying to "set up a sequel". I think Minghella ended with a different tone BECAUSE the film is a one-shot deal. It would be cool for a series of films to have Ripley eb completely amoral and have no conscious, but for a single film Minghella's version fits better. We still wind up rooting for a "bad guy", but the inner turmoil that he goes through speaks volumes more, and actually winds up having more themes to reflect on. As far as being faithful to the book, check out any of Orson Welles' films based on previous material (Othello, Magnificent Ambersons, The Trial). Faithful, no. But insightful and artistic, yes. Having said that, I don't think Ripley the film "violates" the tone of the book, however it might change the psyche of the protagonist.
-
Jan 11, 2000 4:54:49 PM CST
Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are no talet ASS CLOWNS!!!
by mr.shufflebotham
I'm sorry, but am I the only one who is sick of these jokers!!!
Enough already!!!!!!!!! -
I just saw Mr Ripley and now I'M gay! Oops. No I'm not. But I did read that interesting insight by the talented ms/mr jd233 and now I'M gay! Whoa! I didn't mean to write that. I saw IN & OUT on the tube the other day and now I'M gay. I mean, now THERE'S a movie with some subtle gay undertones. Anyway, I liked this Ripley movie, but I'd have liked it a whole lot more if I hadn't gulped down all that soda before I saw it. By the last half hour, I wanted pretty bad to take a wizz. And that was a distraction I didn't need. Not at that point. It's kind of hard to concentrate on plot twists and subtlties of acting and lovely cinematography and style when your bladder's about to burst. But when I saw Ripley taking that last boat ride, I thought, "okay, it's another boat ride. I'll be right back!" Then suddenly that woman recognizes him and before I'm half way out of my seat I'm forced to sit back down. Geeze it was frustrating! But then when I saw Ripley wrapping the tie or whatever around his hand, all was forgiven. I enjoyed the ending. Damon, playing Ripley as a clever yet demented nerd--for lack of a better word--gave a terrific performance. Like the above review says, it's the regular guys who are the scariest because there are so many of them out there, and you don't really know what they have hidden deep down. And now I'M gay! Dammit no I'm not! Alright. That's enough. I'm outta here.
-
I personally love that almost all the talkbacks for this movie are actually talking about the movie, and at length to boot . The more of these talkbacks I read, the more I want to go back and re-watch the movie, not to mention read the book. I do think it was sort of inconsistent to have Ripley more obviously devious in the beginning than at any other point, what with all of the meticulous jazz-learning he went through while planning to ingratiate himself to Dickie.. of course he was shown to be manipulative throughout the movie, but not premeditative, not really. (Or not obsessively so, I should say.)
At any rate, it was obvous that Ripley pre-planned his friendship with Dickie, but was his literal assumption of Dickie's identity (and Dickie's death as a necessary step) premeditated too? I mean, his use of Dickie's name when he introduced himself to Meredith could have just been a bit of indulgence, an opportunity to pretend he belonged to that class, right? It didn't necessarily mean that Ripley was out to get him. But other stuff was ambiguous--all of the close-ups on Dickie's littlest actions, like how he poured drinks, how he stood and walked and talked, and more obviously how he wrote--was that evidence that Ripley was studying up on how to become Dickie once he was killed and out of the picture; or was that just a hint that Ripley had other motives for sticking around than a desire for wealth, insinuating that Ripley was gay before it was made obvious by showing that his increasing attraction to Dickie made him intently focused on every detail of Dickie's behavior? Could it have been that Ripley had planned to kill Dickie from the beginning, but had become loyal to Dickie and decided not to, only to reverse that decision when he realized his new plan wouldn't work out? And what's up with the harsh reviews for Matt Damon? He didn't impress me much before this, but as Ripley he blew me away. Every uncomfortable moment he had, trying to be more than what he was and being called on it, made me feel as squirmingly awkward as he looked--if he and Minghella were going for empathy, they freakin pulled it off, I think. Anyway, all of the talkback reviews I've read are cool, and Harry's description of Ripley's actions as being the most convenient was insightful.. but damn Harry, could you stop... With the sentence fragments? -
Just a thought-- I hope I didn't offend anyone with my lighthearted approach to the gay theme. I was joking around as usual, and it re-occurs to me that in this format, humor may not translate very well without facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. It's like when Freddy walks into that apartment and knows it's not Dickie's. He knows Dickie well enough to know that his style is nowhere to be seen except in how Ripley looks. I know everyone knows this. Frankly I don't give a rat's ass about what anyone's orientation is. I'm disturbed by and often bewildered at how some people get so hung up on it.
-
I don't want to put anyone else's opionion down...we all like something different....we all get something different out of each movie that we see. That being said..... I honestly don't see why people are raving about this film so much. I agree that it was well shot and well acted....almost everything about the film was good....except.....it was uninteresting. About half way through the film, I wanted to claw my eyes out due to boredom. There was NO suspense....no surprises....no plot twists....no characters to care about....no character development..no reason to watch it. I am not saying I wanted car chases and gun fights.....but I wanted SOMETHING interesting. Personally, I didn't find Mr. Ripley all that talented or clever. I found it HIGHLY imporbably that this guy could snake his way through a police investigation without ANYONE ever clueing in that he was a fraud (and it's not like he was all that good of a fraud , either) ....the whole thing was VERY contrived. Much liek THE ENGLISH PATIENT...this movie was beautifully shot.....well acted....and too boring. That's my 2 cents.
-
I don't think this is a great movie. But I like reading these posts. They're enlightening. Is Ripley clever or is he a dope? Are the cops morons? Is the book better? Etc. I might say that Ripley is clever because he says and does what he has to do to stay one step ahead of those who would catch on. You might say that a chimp who puts a sticky blade of grass down a hole and pulls out termites is clever, but Ripley ain't clever! Plus, he's a lousy awkward, sweaty liar who should have been arrested immediately as a suspect. And I could say that that's just not how police did things in Italy back then. And you might be tempted to use the term "ass clown." And that's what I like about this kind of movie. It's debatable. It's a good movie filled with enough holes to make me want to identify the holes and try to fill them in, which is kind of why I came to this site in the first place.
-
Your review makes this movie sound almost good. I couldn't agree with you more that Mr. Ripley (could have been) one of the most intersting pathological characters in film. Assuming, of course that Damon and Minghella had delivered. I couldn't disagree more about Damon's performance, which was almost as torturous as Paltrow's. The only stunner was the final scene with Peter, which is truly the only scene deserving of any of the Hitchcock comparisons floating around this film.
-
This film was very dark and interesting. Matt Damon did a great job in this movie and I hope he gets nominated for an Oscar. A lot of people didn't like this film or didn't get it I enjoyed it because it was different.
-
I agree that this movie has pretty much all the great characteristics of a great movie: acting, script, etc. and something not all great movies have: tension. Throughout most of the movie tension is building, sometimes its boring, sometimes it isn't, but then you get to the end of the movie, and there is no explosion. It was as if they couldn't think of a way to end the movie, so they just did. I'm wondering if he gets off the boat or not. You can't hide a dead person in your room forever, and why didn't they ever find Dickie either. Shouldn't he be floating around. Damon should get a nomination for best actor, and maybe Jude Law for supporting actor, but after that no recognition is really deserving.
-
This was the most impressive and most splendid work of art. I have never been utterly taken by such a film. I do fancy many and have quite a few favourites but this one... it still has not left the frame of mind. It has merely intimidated me, the writing rather. I, myself being a writer found it rather bothersome and despite what any other could say, I do find Minghella to be rather genius. He is a good damn storyteller. And how many could not understand or find fancy in such film, deep within it is comprehensible but its magic should not be forgotten so easily.
-
"Marge, YOU like everybody!"
That will never stop cracking me up. Good movie otherwise, though.
By the by, jd233, you might want to rescind your membership to the radical right. I think its starting to effect your judgement. -
Perhaps my opinion will undeniably get a rise from many others yet I feel the person who claimed to feel Talented Mr. Ripley a bit too gay seemed quite upon the defensive. I feel this was rather un-called for. I do not know if I should bother respecting his opinion when it seemed quite hateful. My opinion is that no matter how many people fret, Tom, Freddy and Dickie were not homosexual. Wanting to be someone else does not entail a title of being "gay" nor does it allow space for ridicule. A man set out to murder someone who he has fallen in love with is heart-rending enough. That such would compell one to act in annihilation of another human being is by no means any other sort of conclusion. Persons rather disturbed by such subjects, especially ones they might not be able to understand, succumb to this child-like school bollocks of wrong and moral. It is rather shallow to dismiss it in anger yet maybe that is good somehow, the film got to you.
-
Somebody thought Ripley was too gay, and somebody thought Ripley wasn't gay at all? First of all, I LOVED everything about this film. As a gay person myself, I wanted to respond to two comments. To the idiot who thought "Ripley" was too gay; What does THAT mean? Im from the deep South, and when I was in the theater watching TTMR, people began to squirm, giggle uncomfortably, and "ewe" at the bathtub scene with Tom and Dickie. My eyes rolled and I thought, "God, people! get a life!" Too gay? Fingers in water? A glance at Dickie's rear end?
And to the person who said Ripley was not gay;.... um... yes he was. In fact, despite everyone saying that Ripley was a "nobody, trying to be a somebody", I saw it as a gay man who was profoundly disturbed by his dawning sexual conciousness and desperatley wanted to be loved.
Loved the movie! Loved the review Harry! -
And I am rather sorry for those who might not understand what I meant to say there. I could sense the eroticism between the two but understand, its even written in the book, Tom is not 'Gay'. I am undeniably serious. It was not 'I want to be with Dickie,' it was more among the lines of 'Let me be your friend' and killing him off was his ill-fated need to attain that life. Many thought Freddy was gay and this was not the case. It's upper class twit syndrome and nothing less. I do not think personally that Tom was gay. I do not mean to get on anyone's bad side rather much debate the issues and not offend really.
-
I'm probably too late to make much of an impression here but I've only just caught the very first UK screening of 'Mr Ripley'. It is a masterful film, and I would be delighted to see The Talented Mr Minghella sweep Oscars for his exceedingly eloquent script and inspired direction. The man takes home my award for making a film which improves upon the original book. After all, how often do we see that? Never. What makes it a truly extraordinary film is what he's done with the conclusion - it remains utterly faithful to Patricia Highsmith's ethos yet leaves us with much more resonance. In what I felt was the very best scene of this consistently absorbing film, Tom sits at the piano with his companion Peter and tells him of his urge to give someone the key to his chamber of secrets, yet he knows he will never be able to do this. And this is the culmination which Minghella takes us too. At the end, Tom feels forced - through his own characteristic rash behaviour - to kill Peter, and with that - in those last seconds we see the light fleeting across his face - to kill the thing he has so desperately sought. It is a terrifyingly sad outcome. With it comes the revelation that he cannot ever have what he wants. He who has always sought acceptance will now never have it. And so the film becomes a stunning meditation on how the pursuit of goodness is terminally corrupted by badness. The desire to have goodness can invariably lead to badness. But for Tom to realise in the last moments that because of what he has done he will never ever be able to truly have what he wants, then he hasn't got away with anything at all. And that, I find ingeniously devastating. This is a towering and mesmeric film, and although the golden statuettes count for nothing, I hope The Talented Mr Ripley comes out on top come Oscar night.
-
near perfect first half. too bad the latter portions didn't measure up. and is it me, or wasn't Philip Seymore Hoffman using the same voice he used in Flawless. One more thing: What's up with Celia weston being in only ONE scene? and the why James rebhorn?
-
Yes the great one has returned. When I posted my earlier comments i had no idea what an uproar it would cause. For those of you who actually emailed me off this site, thank you for providing some necessary comic relief. Anyways why is it anytime someone says anything about "GAYS" he's immediately called right wing or homophobic? It's so predictable and so pathetic.
The reason why i felt this movie sucked due to its rather overt homosexual references is because it was not marketed as such. As one of those unfamiliar with the book I was expecting a totally different movie as was everyone else in the theater. During the homosexual scenes you can just see everybody looking at each other like "can you believe this?" and then after realizing where the director was going with this you realized you just wasted $8.50.
Listen im sure ill get blasted on here by everyone again as being a gay basher. WHATEVER. The truth is I just have a problem with how this movie was marketed. I personally would much rather see Damon chasing Paltrow, and so would the majority of the public, furthermore besides all the rave reviews this is getting, the word on the street about this movie is it is bad and its very bad.
This opinion is echoed by both college aged male and females who were not comfortable or remotely interested by the subject matter. I know what you are going to say, but this is the world we live in and this is what people in my age bracket think about this movie. It's the truth and sure it deals with sexual preferences. But we have a right to say that. The marketing of this movie fooled everyone and it is the only reason this movie has made any money. Do you think the American majority would have gone to see this movie if the trailer included that bathtub scene? I think not. Ask yourselves these questions before you bash me. I understand the majority of gays do not choose their lifestyle, but it doesnt mean we cant criticize a movie as boring and gay when it is marketed as suspenseful and features a female bombshell in all the trailers.
-
I saw this film yesterday, and I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought the performances were great, as was the story and the settings. And as a heterosexual, I found this movie enjoyable, even though some on this site have called it "too gay". I'm not going to call them homophobic or right wing, just say that I think they need to reevaluate themselves and how they view others. I too thought that Ripley would be pursuing Marge, but I was not distraught or disappointed at the direction it took. I actually commend them for making a major film that deals with this character, and that they did not convert this into a Matt Damon/Gwenyth Paltrow picture, like too many of these films try to do today. And, if the bath tub sequence would have been included in the trailers, I still would have gone to this movie. So, please, see this film...you will not be disappointed.
-
JD233, while you are right that one reason this film may not have made more money than it has is because its narrative has homosexual overtones, you're an absolute fascist to say it shouldn't therefore have them. Since when was popularity essential? If a filmmaker's only goal was to get as many bums on seats, to make as much money as possible, then film would not be art. I can't believe your appalling narrow-mindedness here. Has it OCCURED to you that Anthony Minghella was not expecting 'Men in Black' size grosses for this film? Has it occured to you that how much a film makes financially is not the soul concern of the artists who make it? The book on which this film is based is about a man who becomes seduced by another man's character, not his bloody girlfriend. I have seen THAT story a billion times over, and Patricia Highsmith's The Talented Mr Ripley is not it. Anthony Minghella set out to make her story into a film, and he has remained utterly faithful to her ethos. This happens to be a film about that. What it makes at the box office is irrelevant, because artists do not bow to commerce. Also, this business about the word on the street being that this picture is bad...UTTER RUBBISH. I have not met one person who wasn't hugely impressed by it, and no one I know is a critic. Get with it.
-
This movie was rather good in two aspects that I enjoyed. One, the way it allowed the viewing audience the direct means to relate the characters of each one involved at the same time. Most people, in one point of their lives have been outside the loop in the regards that they would like to be with the IN crowd and not happy with whom they are and have, Im sure, tossed around the ideas, all be it fantasy wise, the same thoughts that Mr. Ripley himself put into action. He took that one step over the line, we as humans are not going to step over, though the thoughts of the mind have already crossed before we know it. Mr. Ripley is aware of his actions and isnt all too happy about it, but he still has the mindset of being the outcast and still hasnt learned to deal with the snobbery that inevitably follows around the rich and powerful and the playgrounds they pplay in. Coming from a different playground, the Talented Mr. Ripley joins in on the fun and games but makes his own rules as he goes along, although they cross the boundaries of the playing field called life.
2) The photography was rather enjoyable and the close ups of all the smiles that Mr. Ripley passed on as real, obviously showed the pain and discomfort he felt and the hidden lies behind his mind. His tight lipped smiles, were nice on the outside, evil on the inside and that added to the great complexity of the Talented Mr. Ripley. -
The weird part is that Knowles' review was 100 times better than that piece of shit movie. Sincerely, Keith @ www.SHITE.com
-
OK, so, like if Anthony Minghella never directs another film ever, that would be fine by me. He has the uncanny ability to create movies that are amazingly, remarkably and hypnotically irritating.
THE ENGLISH PATIENT? Puhleeeze! The only movie I've ever seen with no redeaming qualities whatsoever. Bad on every parameter.
The first 1/2 hour or so of RIPLEY left me squirming in my seat. The rest of the movie? I was like Malcom McDowell in "A Clockwork Orange." Re-educated in a straitjacket, screaming with eyes pried open. If it wasn't the painfully long and unwatchable opening credits it was the annoying jazz background music that DIDN'T STOP, ever. Every scene is directed the same way. Open wide, close up on actor A talk, cut to B, cut back to A, CONFLICT, someone runs out of the room. Then all these boring scenes are sort of muddled together in a hurried and lazy mess. All this interspersed with Matt Damon's patented smirk. The original novel was good. I don't know how he was able to screw it up so badly.
I'm sure someone could hire him on as a P.A. or maybe craft service. -
i have to admit i did not love the movie, but your review was so convincing I was forced to reevaluate it. congrats.
-
The movie does not work. The ending just lets you know that the filmmaker has no idea what film he is making or even why except to work with some talented young actors in an exotic location. "Purple Noon" is a minor French classic that work closer to a Hitchcock film in that you have empathy for the young killer as he must drag Freddie's heavy body down the stairs. And certainly, the great twist ini the end, Dickie's body being bound to the boat. The film was concise. This film is the long winded Talented Mr Serial Killer.
-
Ripley is a beautifully flawed movie that creates controversy with its gay bashing. Ripley is not gay in the Highsmith novels. In fact in further installments he gets married and becomes a famous, if corrupt, art dealer. In making Ripley gay, Minghella opts for a bit of gay bashing in saying that being gay and felony murder are cut from the same cloth.
There is a missing back story of Ripley's struggles in his abusive childhood and youth that make him much more sympathetic. His parents died and he was left in the care of a cold and uncaring Aunt who meted out his existence at her will. Ripley is brilliant, but somewher crossed a line. In the novel he is clever and thoughtful. For Minghella, Ripley gets by on happy circumstance. In the novel he is far more clever with a definite plan. Meredith Logue is not in the novel. Peter Smith-Kingsley is only mentioned and never meets Tom. Marge never suspects that Tom is so dupicitous. The American private jumps to the wrong conclusions. Tom, via letter, convinces Mr. Greenleaf that Dickie left Tom his full inheritance which is made believable by the fact that Mr. Greenleaf cares far more for Tom than he does for his own son.
Bottom line: Minghella was writing for the excecutives and not to tell the actual story. In a movie, the protagonist must suffer for his sins. In real life many people get away with mayhem and murder on a daily basis. -
Well The Talented Mr Ripley has FINALLY seen cinema release in Australia... I think this movie is going to grow beyond my initial impressions of it. After seeing it today I was mostly unmoved, though I did walk away with a feeling of guilt myself! I could relate all too easily to Tom Ripley taking the convenient lie when pressed (just not those extremes). I loved the way the movie was filmed, the scenery, the soundtrack... absolutely beautiful. The vaguaries of the plot were killing me - like others have said, I couldn't believe Tom Ripley got off the hook - how incompetent were the police and detective??? As another talkbacker said, I didn't see anything talented about him at all - he just seemed to be trying to keep his head above water when pressed. The review and the talkbacks have been interesting to read - I will see the character of Tom Ripley in a different light again when I see it again (and I do think I will). I think repeated viewings will be necessary to see if there is real substance in this film - I do hope so...
-
I don't agree that Jude Law sucks, but I do think he's become a one-note actor. His performances in Ripley, Wilde and Gattaca all seemed to be of the same character -- a good-looking punk with too much attitude who screams whenever he wants to convey any strong emotions. I think he's beautiful, but he needs to expand his range.
-
As I was sitting in the theatre some days ago, watching Ripley, I was completely amazed by the cinematography. (among other things, this is a very very smart and elegant film)
This must have been the most gorgeous cinematography I have seen in a long time.
The texture, the contrast, the faces ... wow! Very painterly. And slowly we descend into darkness, as the blacks start to claim larger parts of the screen until they dominate!
Also, it was an excellent print (unfortunately, a rarity here in Amsterdam), and the sound was great as well. -
i agree with you, harry, for the most part. but what happens to tom when the boat lands and other reservations are under TR? what happens when his lover is missing in action? is he going to continue being dickie? what happens to the stipend TR is getting from dickie's dear old dad ? are we to believe that he simply didn't think that far ahead? he thought far enough to determine it was easier to kill 1 than 4. the pathos of the situation is moving (losing what he was looking for, someone who would love him for himself) but the lose ends mitigate the emotional impact!
-
LOOOONG
BOOOORING
GAY
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts