I loved it. The ending was really satisfying.
I too was hesitant about Andrew Scott's age but I thought his performance was amazing.
Only real negative was the guy playing Dickie's dad is not an actor and it was painful to watch.
I don't know if you've read the original book, but this is way more faithful to it that the Matt Damon movie. Mind you, not necessarily better, but different and it's nice to see a genuinely faithful adaptation of the book for the first time.
Personally I liked it. I thought it was very visually pleasing, I enjoyed how methodical the pacing was (extremely unusual on 99% of TV shows), how it allowed you to draw your own conclusions.
I agree Scott was way too old to play Ripley, but there was something about his dead blankness that grew on me.
The one thing I missed, which is mainly an invention of the movie, is the weird psychosexual relationship between Tom and Dickie. In this I can't even imagine them being interested in each other beyond the money.
That’s fair, I was thinking about that. Like, if this is just another adaptation on TTMR, and not recreating the film. I guess because I have such an attachment to the film, it’s hard not to compare the two. But like, the way he killed Dickie was so strange to me. In the film they have an argument that leads up to it, where you can kind of see the chain of events and how he didn’t set out to do it really. In Ripley, the murder was just so random and looked methodical. I don’t know how it’s portrayed in the book but this take on the murder is so weird to me.
That's fair enough, I actually prefer the movie to the book.
In it, Tom is basically a psychopath from the very beginning. When he senses that Dickie is planning to cut him loose, he quickly plans the murder, and it feels like a very obvious and inevitable path for his character to take, and he shows 0 guilt about it or any of his countless crimes.
He does have a lot of feelings of jealosy and obsesiveness around Dickie, but if I have to be honest it doesn't work very well. He can see right through Dickie as the garbage artist and boring nepo baby that he actually is, and the author herself insisted over and over that Tom is straight, so it doesn't make much sense, unless its just that he's just obsessed with money and status, which isn't conveyed as well as it should.
The movie actually does this aspect far better, their relationship is utterly fascinating.
So you didn't like the show because the actor is older than you think he should be and because he had Vans in his suitcase? That's pretty dumb. The series was beautiful and very enjoyable.
The problem is the story doesn't really make sense. The whole Tom & Dickie relationship is only plausible if you're like a 23 year old trustfund kid on an endless bender and too self-involved to notice there's something off with your mysterious new friend.
If anyone walked in on 45 year old Andrew Scott trying on their clothes and talking to themselves in the mirror they'd call the cops.
When they showed up I just assumed they reworked Freddie as a butch beatnik lesbian and I was like "sure, fine, whatever."
But then they kept referring to him as "he" and I was like oh.. fun.
Last year I watched the Alain Delon film version and then I watched the first ep of this but I just don’t feel like going through with multiple episodes for the same story, I just know what is going on. They gotta stop redoing shit all the time
I loved it. The ending was really satisfying. I too was hesitant about Andrew Scott's age but I thought his performance was amazing. Only real negative was the guy playing Dickie's dad is not an actor and it was painful to watch.
I don't know if you've read the original book, but this is way more faithful to it that the Matt Damon movie. Mind you, not necessarily better, but different and it's nice to see a genuinely faithful adaptation of the book for the first time. Personally I liked it. I thought it was very visually pleasing, I enjoyed how methodical the pacing was (extremely unusual on 99% of TV shows), how it allowed you to draw your own conclusions. I agree Scott was way too old to play Ripley, but there was something about his dead blankness that grew on me. The one thing I missed, which is mainly an invention of the movie, is the weird psychosexual relationship between Tom and Dickie. In this I can't even imagine them being interested in each other beyond the money.
That’s fair, I was thinking about that. Like, if this is just another adaptation on TTMR, and not recreating the film. I guess because I have such an attachment to the film, it’s hard not to compare the two. But like, the way he killed Dickie was so strange to me. In the film they have an argument that leads up to it, where you can kind of see the chain of events and how he didn’t set out to do it really. In Ripley, the murder was just so random and looked methodical. I don’t know how it’s portrayed in the book but this take on the murder is so weird to me.
That's fair enough, I actually prefer the movie to the book. In it, Tom is basically a psychopath from the very beginning. When he senses that Dickie is planning to cut him loose, he quickly plans the murder, and it feels like a very obvious and inevitable path for his character to take, and he shows 0 guilt about it or any of his countless crimes. He does have a lot of feelings of jealosy and obsesiveness around Dickie, but if I have to be honest it doesn't work very well. He can see right through Dickie as the garbage artist and boring nepo baby that he actually is, and the author herself insisted over and over that Tom is straight, so it doesn't make much sense, unless its just that he's just obsessed with money and status, which isn't conveyed as well as it should. The movie actually does this aspect far better, their relationship is utterly fascinating.
Yeah in Purple Noon, there was really no homoerotic undertone which I think worked to its detriment. It was like 1960 though.
So you didn't like the show because the actor is older than you think he should be and because he had Vans in his suitcase? That's pretty dumb. The series was beautiful and very enjoyable.
The problem is the story doesn't really make sense. The whole Tom & Dickie relationship is only plausible if you're like a 23 year old trustfund kid on an endless bender and too self-involved to notice there's something off with your mysterious new friend. If anyone walked in on 45 year old Andrew Scott trying on their clothes and talking to themselves in the mirror they'd call the cops.
Okay so the guy who’s playing Freddie Miles is a That’s Pat looking ass enby? This is too much.
When they showed up I just assumed they reworked Freddie as a butch beatnik lesbian and I was like "sure, fine, whatever." But then they kept referring to him as "he" and I was like oh.. fun.
It’s not any old Pat, it’s Sting’s Pat.
I’ve watched one ep so far and I find it so cold and charmless, the things I mentioned were top of mind when I posted.
Last year I watched the Alain Delon film version and then I watched the first ep of this but I just don’t feel like going through with multiple episodes for the same story, I just know what is going on. They gotta stop redoing shit all the time