User Reviews

For every mediocre movie that makes it to the theater, another far superior movie will lay dormant and unseen, never quite making it to the big screen. There is possibility that the latter film will become a "sleeper" hit at the video rental store, but even so, the fact that it never even got a chance at becoming a box office success is pure cinematic injustice. Never have I felt so strongly about this belief than after my recent viewing of Liliana Cavani's thoughtful, stylish thriller, RIPLEY'S GAME.

WARNING: SPOILERS CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS!

Though apparently screened elsewhere in the world, RIPLEY'S GAME was never given a theatrical release in the United States. Though I don't know the exact reason for this, my guess is because of its subject matter. For one thing, the distributors probably felt it was too intellectual for the average moviegoer. Moreover, Ripley's Game is very dark and unsettling, almost overwhelmingly so; and even the most seasoned fans of suspense flicks may have a hard time digesting the events depicted onscreen. Another reason may have been because the movie has the anti-hero come out strong in the end, which goes against our country's traditional "the good guy always wins" plot structure. But whatever the answer, one thing is for certain: it's a shame that the American people were never given the chance to see this wonderful movie the same way the rest of the world was.

Based on the central character of a successful series of novels, the "talented improviser" Tom Ripley is played by veteran actor John Malkovich. Normally a character as ruthless and complex as Ripley would be too unbelievable to accept, no matter who the performer. Malkovich, however, plays his part with the utmost precision, contributing so many subtle eccentricities and nuances to his character that Tom Ripley seems to come alive with the most frightening realism.

Tom Ripley is an extremely complicated and multifaceted character. Within his words and actions lie many contradictions. Despite his evident lack of a conscience, he does show a hint of compassion every now and then. His unexpected appearance on the train and his willingness carry out the murders for Jonathan shows that Ripley is indeed sympathetic of him and his plight, and perhaps even fascinated by his vulnerability. Jonathan is also the only character (aside from Ripley's lover, Luisa) who he opens up to, sharing intimate details about his childhood and his feelings. It is during these moments when we really see the private, humanistic side of Ripley, and not just the smug, cold-blooded façade that he shows to everybody else.

On the flipside, Jonathan is just as enthralled with Ripley as Ripley is of Jonathan. While Ripley is drawn to Jonathan because of his indelible purity, Jonathan seems to secretly admire Ripley's "live-fast" persona; and now, with the recent news of his leukemia, Jonathan probably feels the need to experience life at its fullest-something he knows Ripley does every day. This would explain why he continues to associate himself with Ripley, allowing himself to fall deeper and deeper into a pit of danger and excitement. His moment of triumph comes when he takes a bullet for Ripley, which not only represents a form of payment he felt he was indebted to Ripley, but also acted as "cure" for all the problems in his life-especially his terminal illness. Therefore, he was able to "beat" leukemia before it was able to kill him, and instead die in a way that was heroic, exciting, and memorable. This ultimate act of courage, love, and spontaneity in such a predictable human being shocked and puzzled Ripley, a feat which must be nearly impossible considering his utter lack of emotion. In this way, Jonathan was able to beat Ripley at his own game.

Aside from this one interpretation, the movie's title works on a number of other levels as well. Ripley views his "every-man-for-himself" lifestyle as a game that he is continuously playing, but that can never truly be won. Likewise, fellow con artists and criminals are forced to play Ripley's game when negotiating with him, testing their wits to see if they are clever enough to scam him. Of course, the meaning of the title isn't set in stone, and each viewer is likely to interpret it differently. Also, because of the cerebral, subjective nature of this film, multiple viewings will no doubt yield multiple interpretations in most viewers.

One of the high points of RIPLEY'S GAME is its somber, creepy mood, which is enhanced greatly by the film's music and art direction. The otherworldly harpsichord soundtrack coupled with the lavish, almost heavenly decoration of Ripley's mansion is breathtaking, and succeeds in making Ripley and his lover seem "above" the audience in all respects. The camera always pans very slowly as it shows the soothing, elegant artwork in the background, emphasizing Ripley's permanent calmness, even in the most harrowing situations. It's the subtle, almost unnoticeable touches like these that make this film so disconcerting.

RIPLEY'S GAME is proof positive that a movie doesn't have to be a financial success in order to be worth watching. Despite its relative obscurity, this brainy, satisfying thriller has a lot to offer.

Malkovich does a great job as tom ripley, the cool and unflappable killer who seems incapable of ever raising his voice no matter what the situation. He turns down an offer to return to his assassin ways and instead suggests another, very unlikely, candidate for the job. But eventually tom gets involved anyway and the killings don't go very smoothly and they end up killing not just the target but another half dozen or so people.

Pretty slow movie but picks up speed considerably towards the end. The final scene is memorable. After a busy day of killing and disposing of bodies, ripley goes to the concert hall to see his girlfriend perform on the harpsichord.

An excellent movie showing the talented Mr. Ripley late in the game. John Malkovich and Ray Winstone are excellent. Ripley is a narcissistic sociopath who has become well-to-do, maybe even wealthy, and he uses money to manipulate a dying man into committing a murder. It's an excellent script with excellent actors. Director Liliani Cavani weaves disparate scenes together, illuminating Ripley's dead, dark heart.

I can't get over how good Malkovich is at showing affectless sociopaths. I recently watched the 1945 version of "The Picture of Dorian Gray" with Hurd Hatfield as the titular villain. Hatfield's characterization was affectless also, but his face was just blank. Malkovich manages to project the soulless debauchery "Dorian Gray" was aiming for and failed to show. In one scene, Ripley watches the tormented Jonathon Trevanny (Dougray Scott) come to grips with what he has become; Ripley's issue is whether they'll make their plane. Malkovich manages to be considerate and totally heartless at the same time. It's a very impressive performance with powerful subtlety that few actors can bring off. And Malkovich does it through the whole movie.

"Ripley's Game" is not for everyone because the main character is not likable and has no "character development." He's almost the same when we leave him as when we first see him. At the end Ripley does seem to have some appreciation for Trevanny's moral character while having no appreciation at all for Trevanny's action. If you need to have a hero you can like, "Ripley's Game" is not for you. If you want to see a character study with a superb actor and excellent costars, you may find the movie rewarding.

Having just seen Liliana Cavani's "Ripley's Game" on DVD, I feel a bit like a duplicitous lover trying to hide the lipstick stains on my collar. The experience was probably doomed to be disappointing, given that Wim Wender's 1977 film "The American Friend", based on the same Patricia Highsmith novel and starring Dennis Hopper as Tom Ripley, is one of my all-time favorite films. Nevertheless, I somehow felt open-minded enough to accommodate variant approaches to marvelously fertile source material, and I expected John Malkovich's Ripley would go far toward eradicating the memory of Matt Damon's insipid interpretation of the same character in 1997's "The Talented Mr. Ripley."

Although this is arguably a respectable contemporary thriller, it pales in every department to Wenders' eccentric masterpiece. Presented with a rather straight-forward story-line, it lacks the across-the-board tautness and rich ambiguity that make 'American Friend' so compelling. While Malkovich's sophisticated, dead-pan jocularity may feel closer to Highsmith's literary Ripley, it ultimately proves far less fascinating than Hopper's edgy grin and saw-toothed neuroses. Dougray Scott never begins to approach the subtlety of Bruno Ganz's grudging attraction to Ripley in the earlier film. 'Ripley's Game' is attractively composed and photographed but simply doesn't satisfy like "Friend's" hot primary palette and ominous framing.

*****Slight Spoilers Beyond this Point*****

There's a less-effective sense of place in the new film's Italian setting, nothing as visually emphatic as the waterfront and under-river tunnel of 'Friend's" Munich. Also, some details seem inconsistent. Cavani situates Jonathan and his family in an affluence unlikely for a financially-strapped picture framer, no matter how wealthy his friends and associates might be. Jonathan's first "test" murder occurs in a public aquarium, and I hoped (fervently, but in vain) for the bullet to smash the fish-tank glass and create a deluge to rival the frantic rush through the Paris metro, the locale Wenders chose for this scene. The train episode is very reminiscent of that filmed twenty odd years ago, but in terms of tension and surprise, it never leaves the station. In "Ripley's Game", Tom selects Jonathan as his "protege" after overhearing him bluntly disparage Ripley in public as tastelessly nouveau-rich. The anti-hero of "The American Friend" makes the decision based solely on Jonathan's withering tone when saying, "I've heard about you" as they are introduced. Forgive my own snobbishness when I suggest that the subtler, more rarefied slight establishes Tom's revenge as far more demented and chilling.

Wenders personalized Highsmith's tale, larding it through with psychological uncertainty and disquieting editing. He allowed his passion for the material to make it his own, molding it into a vibrantly convoluted and unique experience. The re-make, by comparison, feels abbreviated and pedestrian. Had Wenders never made his film, "Ripley's Game" would rank higher in general satisfaction. Unfortunately, the second adaptation cannot escape the shadow of the first and ends up being secondary.

I am a big fan of Patricia Highsmith' crime-novels, which are actually more psychological thrillers than real who-done-it's. Tom Ripley is a character that for the first time came to life in the novel "The talented mister Ripley" (1955), and he had all the characteristics of Higsmith's other anti-heroes (always middle-class thirty-something next-door neighbor kind of guys), with one essential difference: Ripley did not posess any conscience. After the first Ripley-novel, which is an absolute classic, PH wrote four sequels, spread out over some 4 decades and "Ripley's game" is the third (1974). Aside from the fact that maybe the premise is a bit far-fetched, the involvement of a diseased and dying man who is manipulated into a murder brings some very good psychological insights and a thrilling plot.

John Malkovich is in every way different from Highsmith's Tom Ripley. He impersonates Ripley as an aging, balding man, with an icy coolness, an aristocratic air, dead sure of himself: everything that the authentic Tom Ripley was NOT. I guess Malkovich's version of Ripley is supposed to impress as a very sinister person, but it's all exaggerated mannerism: he can only look in one way (intense), talk in one way (mumbled and whispered one-liners) and he moves about as a stiff Nosferatu. He's also extremely unsympathetic, which is the exact opposite of the feelings that the original Ripley always evoked.

And then there was all this changing of details from Highsmith's Ripley-novels that kept surprising me. For instance: why Italy (while Tom lives in the south of France), why a giant castle (Tom lives in a chic but modest cottage), why all this ostentatious wealth (Tom always has money-troubles, living mainly of his wife who gets an allowance from her parents), why a wife that is a professional harpsichord-player and apparently knows all about his criminal activities (while Tom's wife is a darling air-head that doesn't ask questions) and why the insinuations of passionate marital sex (while Tom's Heloise doesn't care much about sex, and Tom himself is always very ambiguous about it, and by the way throughout all the Ripley-novels there are many homosexual innuendo's). Was the script-writer thinking he needed to improve on Highsmith??

Evidently I didn't like the acting of John Malkovich. Dougray Scott (as Jonathan) on the other hand did a fair job, and Chiara Caselli as Ripley's wife is mainly beautiful, but her constant lascivious behavior got a bit on my nerves. The settings (the Italian landscape and the stunning castle of Ripley) are impressive and the musical score by Ennio Morricone is beautiful in it's own right, but a bit too heavy and epic for this kind of "small" story.

All in all I was greatly disappointed. And it makes me all to curious to see this other adaptation of the same novel by Wim Wenders: "The American Friend".

The improviser with no conscience is now later in years and more sophisticated and calm in the way he does his work. "Tom Ripley"(John Malkovich)is bothered with the annoyance of a former partner he assisted on a painting scheme named Reeves(Ray Winstone). Reeves needs an innocent to kill some people for him so he can make some serious business profit. The pawn of Ripley's game, and the innocent stained with blood, will be painting framer Jonathan(Dougray Scott)who is dying of leukemia. Jonathan isn't wealthy and makes an insult towards Ripley at a party function(that Ripley overhears and visibly it is etched that he's angry about it)that will put in motion him being selected as the one probable to commit murders for Reeves. Jonathan is indeed a tragic character in this film for he kills once to earn a cool profit that would benefit his money-strapped family after he's dead, Reeves threatens that very family if he doesn't murder again.

Ripley steps up to assist Jonathan in the second kill(which Reeves informs must be completed with the use of a garrote), which is anything but easy killing a man with a wire-strangling device, on board a train. When one of the second kill's men doesn't die, they come looking for Ripley and Jonathan which makes up the final thirty minutes of the film.

I have to say, the film is entertaining, specifically for Malkovich's portrayal of a much wiser, more seasoned specialist who doesn't suffer from guilt or bothered by reasoning out his actions. He's cold, calculating, swift, and infinitely quick-thinking. Dougray Scott's interpretation of the sad Jonathan is also a marvelous watch because he is engulfed with the torment of his actions. His wife wants to know how he earns so much money and where he goes when heading off to Berlin to assassinate people. The knowledge of having to kill weighs him down and tears away at his very guts. He doesn't enjoy killing and it deeply bothers him. Jonathan loves that son of his and adores his beloved wife. Ripley doesn't even wince at killing, but Jonathan isn't a sociopath monster cloaked by this quiet demeanor. Reeves is the chief motivator of the violence and enjoys sitting back while others does his dirty work. Ripley doesn't quake at Reeves' feet, but Jonathan has his family to worry about. Reeves has the power to harm Jonathan and that control forces the innocent to do his bidding.

I'm amazed how many people on IMDb gave this film such good reviews. It completely lost me in the first scene where Tom Ripley is making the bogus deal with another dodgy art dealer and kills his bodyguard in very unconvincing form. Everything from how the film looks (choice of film stock) to the boring cinematography, choreography, hammy performances, and writing tells me I'm in for ... well, a bad film. And that's exactly what it is, folks!!

Where this movie really lost me is when I discover Tom Ripley talking on a cell phone. Okay. That must mean it is set around the time the movie was made (early 2000's). If this is the same character as the Matt Damon one from The Talented Mr. Ripley which was set in the 1950's, that would make Tom Ripley in his 60's, at least!! I'm sorry, but Malcovich does not look like he's in his 60's. (Even though Malcovich has been sporting the old man haircut probably since he was three, this just doesn't cut it) And my apologies for my lack of knowledge on this Ripley character because I have never read the series, but isn't he supposed to be gay? That was certainly what The Talented Mr Ripley suggested. What I assume is that he's bi-sexual and that many years later he's decided to shack up with a much younger Italian woman who loves it from behind ... Pathetic!