Describing Netflix’s “Ripley” as “nice to look at but nothing going on inside” may be considered insulting, but it also accurately captures the essence of the show.
The new adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s “The Talented Mr. Ripley” novels, previously brought to life in a 1999 film featuring Matt Damon and Jude Law, is undeniably stunning. Andrew Scott, known for his role in “Fleabag,” takes on the lead role in this captivating black-and-white rendition. Against the backdrop of the picturesque Italian countryside, the story of a con artist and his unsuspecting target unfolds, complemented by the mesmerizing performances of the cast.
But beauty can only take you so far. Steven Zaillian, the creator of “Ripley” (now streaming, ★½ out of four), seems to have focused more on the artful composition of shots rather than creating an interesting TV show. As a result, “Ripley” ends up being a visually stunning but ultimately disappointing experience.
In the 1960s, Tom Ripley, a cunning and deceitful con artist portrayed by Scott, finds himself presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. A wealthy shipping magnate hires him to persuade his rebellious heir, Dickie Greenleaf (played by Johnny Flynn), to abandon his carefree adventures across Italy and return home. Tom ventures to a quaint coastal town where he discovers Dickie and his girlfriend Marge (portrayed by Dakota Fanning) living a life of luxury, completely uninterested in returning to their responsibilities in New York.
Tom doesn’t bother attempting to bring Dickie back to the United States. Instead, he cunningly inserts himself into Dickie’s life, taking up residence in his house and subtly influencing Dickie’s perception of Marge. And it’s not out of the ordinary for Tom to experiment with Dickie’s wardrobe or imitate his refined accent, right?
“The series “Ripley” delves into the plot in a way that might spoil the show if I were to explain it all. However, for those who are familiar with the film version, the series places a stronger emphasis on Tom rather than Dickie. It becomes evident that the show serves as a platform to showcase Scott’s exceptional talent in portraying characters with a barely contained rage, much like his infamous villain Moriarty in BBC’s “Sherlock” alongside Benedict Cumberbatch. Undoubtedly, Scott’s portrayal of Ripley is commendable. The only drawback is that this rendition of Tom Ripley fails to engage the audience with anything remotely interesting.”
The writing in this piece falls short of expectations. The plot unfolds at an agonizingly slow pace, and the dialogue feels forced and lacking authenticity. While one could argue that the intention was to create an otherworldly atmosphere, the execution fails to capture that essence, resulting in aimless scenes. The remaining actors deliver decent performances, albeit with minimal involvement. However, the focus seems to be more on showcasing Scott’s aimless wanderings through stone steps and cobbled streets rather than meaningful interactions with other characters.
The lack of excitement in the first two episodes, despite the involvement of talented individuals, is quite disappointing. They are so uninteresting that they might even put you to sleep. However, as the series progresses, the later episodes manage to capture your attention to some extent. Yet, it is not a sudden transformation from zero to incredible within that time. I cannot suggest that you continue watching in hopes of it getting better, as it only becomes slightly less unimpressive.
David Fincher, known for his work on films like “Fight Club” and “The Social Network,” brings his signature style to “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” This gripping thriller, released in 2011, showcases Fincher’s talent for creating tension and suspense. The film follows the story of journalist Mikael Blomkvist, played by Daniel Craig, as he investigates the disappearance of a wealthy businessman’s niece. Along the way, he teams up with Lisbeth Salander, a talented hacker with a troubled past, portrayed by Rooney Mara. The duo delves into a dark and twisted world filled with secrets and danger. Fincher’s meticulous attention to detail is evident in every shot, creating a visual feast for the viewers. The film’s cinematography, reminiscent of Caravaggio paintings, adds an artistic touch to the narrative. Fincher’s ability to craft compelling stories while maintaining a visually stunning aesthetic is a testament to his skills as a filmmaker.
Scott’s magnetic and alluring face may be the focal point here, but it’s important to note that he can’t carry the entire series on his own. In fact, this series falls victim to the same kind of deception as any of Tom Ripley’s schemes.
The highly anticipated remake of “Ripley” has finally arrived, and while Andrew Scott’s talent is undeniable, the film itself fails to deliver. In this review, we will dive into the reasons why this remake falls flat and fails to live up to its potential.
One of the main issues with the “Ripley” remake is its vacuous nature. The film lacks depth and substance, leaving audiences wanting more. Despite Scott’s impressive performance, the lack of a compelling story hinders the overall impact of the film. It feels hollow and fails to capture the essence of the original.
Additionally, the direction of the film leaves much to be desired. The pacing is uneven, resulting in a disjointed viewing experience. The narrative fails to grip the audience, and the emotional beats are often missed. While Scott’s talent shines through, the film’s direction fails to fully utilize his abilities.
Furthermore, the supporting cast fails to make a lasting impression. The characters lack depth and fail to resonate with the audience. This lack of strong supporting performances further detracts from the overall impact of the film. The chemistry between the characters feels forced and lacks authenticity.
Despite these flaws, it’s worth noting that Andrew Scott’s performance is a standout. He brings a unique charm and intensity to the role of Ripley, showcasing his undeniable talent as an actor. His portrayal is captivating and adds a layer of intrigue to an otherwise lackluster film.
In conclusion, the “Ripley” remake may have had potential, but it ultimately falls short. The vacuous nature of the film, coupled with uneven direction and lackluster supporting performances, hinder its overall impact. However, Andrew Scott’s talent shines through, proving once again why he is a force to be reckoned with in the acting world.
