User Reviews

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

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

Is it right to enjoy such unpleasantness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All eyes are on the "talented" Thomas Ripley, from the gargoyles and statues to that wonderful cat in his hotel. Shot in such a way that you feel you are there, you notice all the supporting pieces (and sounds), like the heavy glass ashtray, the creaky old lift and newspaper kiosks that set the stage and mood of mid-century Italy.

I don't know when I have ever watched such a gorgeous production, and the intrigue is through the roof in this one. Not sure Matt Damon's performance in the earlier version can be topped, but Andrew Scott is a close second. Patience is required, because it is a long series but ultimately rewarding.

I was hoping the scenes in Italy would be in color, because... Italy, come on! But I soon accepted the black and white format and now I don't think of it any other way.

Bravo for a series actually worth watching on Netflix that was made for adults!

After years of using IMDB without an account after watching Ripley I had to leave a review. This is simply an excellent adaptation by Netflix and stand out performance by very talented Andrew Scott. Maurizio Lombardi dominates the scenes with his performance as inspector Ravini and his style of interrogations reminds my of Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds. The details in each scene and continuity across the episodes makes for a great story. Characters who make small observations eg hotel staff are often leveraged later in the story and no character is irrelevant. Dakota Fanning and Johnny Flynn are both fantastic in this show. The story has been told and used many times however Ripley brings the story to the masses and it is still enjoyable for those who know the story so pause your views on the comparisons and enjoy this excellent adaptation.

The cat saw it all, the looks exchanged between him and Ripley were unbelievable. Such Cinema Noir. 'Ripley" is a masterclass in tension, intrigue, and psychological depth. From its captivating performances to its meticulously crafted plot twists, each episode leaves you craving more. With lush cinematography and a haunting score, it's a mesmerizing journey into the complexities of identity.

I just loved it all, the B&W, the acting, the adaptation, directing and soundtracks.

I will watch some more work of the director for sure. Well done to all especially Lucio .

I definitely recommend this to everyone.

This masterpiece of a series is completely unique from the movie, and really elicits its own distinctive film noir vibe both in cinematography and dialogue. Purposeful yet subtle performances by all involved; Andrew Scott is absolutely perfect for this role.

I haven't seen a TV series interpreted from a film source this well since Hannibal, where Mads Mikkelsen was also perfectly cast and gave an unforgettable performance.

What else can be said about this series? A bit of a slow burn, but the pacing is completely suitable, and allows for a bit more fleshing out and development of the characters. Although I love the vibrant colors along the coast of Italy as much as anyone, I feel the choice to use a monochromatic palette here really enhanced the mood and atmosphere of the story.

Top notch production in all aspects!

Beautifully photographed. I watched and watched but only for the same reason I'd sit through a travel documentary. Unfortunately, the cinematography is the best this production could offer. If not for the earlier and far better adaptation of the Highsmith book, I might have actually liked this series. I don't think it's a casting issue - how could it be with such a brilliant ensemble?, but more an acting direction issue. Andrew Scott (I am a fan, believe me) eventually grew tiresome in his intensity. The range of emotion he is well equipped to convey (fear, tension, delusional, frustration, anger, hopefulness,....) got spun to endless repetition in the series. And ultimately in expressing such range, he forgot to be likeable (or at least a character that drew curious interest in his awkwardness) the way Matt Damon managed to do in the 1999 film. That Marge and Dickie take Damon's Ripley in their circle as a friend was thus believable. This was not the case in this 2024 series. Andrew Scott was too sinister and strange throughout that it made no sense for him to have struck a friendship Marge and Dickie (or anyone for that matter) at all. The sexual tension and attraction between Matt Damon and Jude Law (and Gwyneth Paltrow) was also sadly lost. And the levity and flirtatiousness in Gwyneth's portrayal of Marge was replaced by the more sombre and resultingly boring Dakota Fanning. Well acted overall - the actors did their job, but the director took the characters where they should not have gone. So unexpected that acting direction would be the flaw of this series, given the strong cast.

Five minutes into this and I'm in awe that it is one of the most brilliant black & white movies I have ever seen, and I've seen many. Andrew Scott blows away previous versions of Ripley. The cinematography is extremely skilled, I can't wait to get back to seeing the whole thing. Folks who claim "black and white is boring" would be better advised to go sit in a megaplex and watch idiotic Marvel spectacles. Have fun. It's about time someone really did an A-1 job of filming a Patricia Highsmith novel. Ripley is an abolutely classic depiction of a psychopath. Yeah, I watched Matt Damon and John Malkovitch, but this is an advance. Looking forward to more from the same director.

For a start Andrew Scott is 48 years old and looks it, so the persona of the young drifter doesn't fit. Next, not just his deliberately slow dialogue but all the casts methodical serious approach to everything becomes a drag.

Add to this this monochrome colouring and the series fails to deliver much punch, surprise or atmosphere apart from dreariness, Ripley is more of a depressed desperate loser than a crafty conman and opportunist.

They've put effort and thought Into the production but they have over done the styling, it drowns out the intrigue and fun the story.

So an average show, that could have been better.

Dakota Fanning's character is so deadpan she flattens most scenes she is in, the beauty and sparkle of Naples is totally lost, the lightness and purity that Gwyneth Paltrow once gave this role, made the character far more appealing.

So I'm being generous with a 5, it's mainly for effort, they tried hard but failed.

The 1999 "Talented Mr Ripley" with Matt Damon and Jude Law is one of my favorites to re-watch. However, being a movie and required to fit the time allowed, we don't learn much about Tom Ripley's back story, his normal life, nor of the many side stories in Europe. We know that, when he is mistaken for a Princeton guy, he doesn't correct the record. We learn early that deception is his friend.

In this 8-part series called just "Ripley" we see more clearly that this Tom is a bit older and how he lives the life of a grifter in New York. For example, he encounters the mail carrier and pretends to be going into the Dr Office, is handed the mail, he finds checks that he can cash. Or he pretends to be a bill collector and has a new check sent to his "agency." Using a variety of fictional identities, if a bank gets suspicious he just walks away and destroys that identity. He is slick and unperturbed, a man on his mission.

So the entire series has the same core story, with the same core characters and their relationships, but it treats Tom in a distinctly different light. It starts when Mr Greenleaf hires a P. I. to find Ripley, we are not sure why he knows about him, but that is how Tom gets the paid assignment to go to Italy and find Dickie.

There are a number of other differences but Tom is forever the grifter and when he realizes what Dicky has he wants it too. He wants that life, and the first episode ends with him practicing in the mirror, introducing himself as Dicky Greenleaf, foreshadowing what the rest of the series will be about.

The show is shot in B&W, which I see some complain about. But I love it, to give it that 'film noir' look and feel. With much more running time to play with it goes a bit deeper in some familiar scenes and also adds some that were not included in the movie. And finally, the last scenes and the ending are heading into a completely different direction.

In my mind there is no value trying to compare this 6 1/2 hour miniseries to the 1999 movie, they are quite different takes on the same core story. I like what they did here, I like the more deliberate pace, I like the B&W approach, to me it helps it feel like 1960s Italy.

Dark but good series, entertaining.

I just started episode 6 and I must say this miniseries is exactly what The Talented Mr Ripley needed - a deep dive into his character and motivation. I like the choice of a not so pretty boy for the lead actor. Both Alain Dolan (Purple Noon) and Matt Damon (1999 version) were stunningly gorgeous and fantastic in their roles but Andrew Scott brings a guy next door earthiness/sliminess to the character of Tom Ripley. He's someone who could easily blend into the crowd and go unnoticed. But, with each episode, he captures my attention no less than Dolan or Damon.

I'm loving the black & white cinematography and interesting camera angles which work well together to highlight the beauty of Italian architecture and the coast.

The noticeable lack of music is soothing and helps connect with the characters and the sounds in their environment. To me the sounds are like another character in the story.

With the strong supporting characters in the previous versions of Ripley, I was initially not sure of the characters of Marg, Dickie, and Freddie - but they grew on me and became very believable. I especially enjoy Freddie being British not American. The Brits do snobby so well!

Now I'm looking forward to the introduction of the inspector and how the next 3 episodes unfold...

Thank you to all involved in making this project.

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

Be warned, once you start, this series will keep you hooked.

Ripley is depicted very differently to the charming person from the film.

Awkward. Calculating. Desperate.

That's how I'd sum him up.

And this is not only filmed beautifully in crisp 4K with visual finesse and a Hitchcock feel.

It has just the right attention to sound design with a beautiful composition.

The character reactions, where more is said with less words kept me intrigued.

It is a mini series but you'll feel like you're watching one great movie after the next as you go from episode to episode.

And one I'd be happy to watch more than once.

For those who complain. First of all, it's not black and white. It's much more than that. The nuances, the shadows... It's almost perfect. You can't get that in colour. Even the paintings have a little extra with this option.

So, it's a question of art. Either you see it. Or you don't. And I really mean "see".

About all the rest. 10 stars for the casting. Andrew Scott at his best. The evolution he gives to the character is remarkable. And Dakota Fanning is a complete surprise, here.

The story. This is not the book. It's based on it. I imagine it's hard for the one stars to understand the difference. This is not "The Talented Mr. Ripley". It's "Ripley".

I don't often post reviews but I was compelled to do so as I really can't understand the 1/10 reviews. It seems that some people can't move beyond the book or film. This is beautifully acted, beautifully shot. I found it a real feast for the eyes and mind. I binged watched it in two days which is a shame as I wished I'd made it last longer. At times I wished it would burst into colour as I remember the film which was very colorful and Italy is best served in colour. But the subject also excellently fits black and white. Enjoy and don't be put off by the strange reviews as this is a really nice series.

The aesthetic of this series is absolutely gorgeous. I enjoyed the black and white, and the contrast with the sharp, modern resolution. The cinematography reminded me of the movie Roma, and they both share a leisurely quietude, but the similarities end there.

Roma managed to infuse itself with a quiet determination of character and moments of joy. This rendition of The Talented Mr Ripley spends too much time meandering through picturesque hallways and stairs, and not enough time establishing relationships and motive. Beautiful but empty.

The casting was also all wrong. All three leads should be in their 20s, but only one is. And of course it's the female character who is young, paired with men who are obviously in their 40s. I wanted to be able to move past it, but it was too distracting, particularly in light of the glacial pacing. Ended up being a beautiful waste of time.

I am three episodes in, and I am spellbound.

Andrew Scott is amazing in this role, which takes on a whole new identity with him in the lead. I looked around the net, and all I could find were comparisons to Matt Damon. Sure, everyone loved Matt Damon, but Andrew Scott shows us a whole new world we never knew existed.

Steven Zaillian is doing a brilliant job getting down to the nitty-gritty, too - the whole underbelly that has never been assessed before. Each shot is like the photo you wish you had snapped - total eye candy.

I won't give any spoilers, but so far, so good. I'm just loving it. Really.

Beautifully shot. Reminiscent of Hitchcock's 'Psycho'. Could've been perfect were it not for:

• the obvious miscasting of Freddie, as the actor (apparently Sting's nepo baby) can't pass for a man, and if the producers meant for the character to be queer, the story simply wouldn't make sense.

• Ripley's disguise near the end which wouldn't have been believable to a blind man as he even sounds the same.

• Minor complaint: Dakota Fanning's uninspired acting. I thought Paltrows over-acting in the 90s movie was one of the weaker points, but at least she was more entertaining than watching paint dry. This version of Dickie was also a lot more subdued, sure enough, but I felt great empathy for his character. The 90s movie made me feel sorry for his murderer instead.

Loved the acting from the Italian cast. The set design, musical score and black and white photography made for an all around atmospheric experience.

(reposting this without checking the spoiler box because my review for some reason wasn't posted the first time around)

Part of Tom Ridley's engaging charm is his earnest boyishness and his eagerness to please. So why cast a nearly 50-year-old man in the role? Andrew Scott is a respected actor, but this part is all wrong for him. I've enjoyed both the Matt Damon and Alain Delon versions, where Tom's youthful beauty opens doors ~ or at least leaves them ajar. And the black-and-white photography doesn't work here. Dickie Greenleaf's life was one of technicolor luxury; let us see it in all of its Mediterranean opulence. So very disappointed by the creative decisions that mar this newest version of Patricia Hightower's thriller.