Category: Ripley’s Reviews

This post may contain affiliate links for books we recommend.  Read the full disclosure here.

“Ripley’s Reviews” is an ongoing series where I will review every book in Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley” Series, as well as multiple screen adaptations of the novels. I will post my reviews on the first Thursday of the month, and delve into the twisted mind of one Tom Ripley and all the various interpretations that he has come to life within. 

It’s kind of crazy to think that a little more than a year ago I started my “Ripley’s Reviews” series, and now I am coming to an end with it. I have to say I really had a fun time doing this specialized series on the blog, as Tom Ripley is such an important character for Thriller fiction and creating protagonists out of monsters. Admittedly overall the “Ripliad” was a bit of a hit or miss series for me, as were the film and media adaptations, but it was fun to see where the character has gone and how he has been interpreted. And for my write up to wrap up the review series, I thought I would talk about my favorite book of the series and my favorite adaptation.

Favorite Book: “The Talented Mr. Ripley”

This one was just the blueprint for so much and it was the introduction to the beloved character, and it never got better than this. “The Talented Mr. Ripley” is uneasy and chilling, but we also get to know Tom Ripley so well as the story goes on and he does more and more heinous things in his quest to absorb Dickie Greenleaf’s life and prestige. Highsmith really captured something special with this book, and it has been adapted, retooled, and reimagined in various ways in the decades after its release. I still think fondly of my bunk bed in Capitola, California as I read the book for the first time in high school, and how much it almost assuredly shaped my taste in thrillers for years to come.

Favorite Adaptation: “The American Friend”

It’s so funny. Even when I reviewed this movie in my review series I said that I thought Matt Damon’s “The Talented Mr. Ripley” was my favorite of the film adaptations thus far. But as time went on, and it came time to write up this final thoughts post, I realized that I THINK “The American Friend” actually ended up being my favorite, just barely eeking out the 1999 film. I don’t know if it’s the tragic portrayal of Johnathan by Bruno Ganz, or the gorgeous cinematography that both evokes beauty and tension, or if it’s Dennis Hopper’s unexpected but effective turn as Ripley, but my heart keeps coming back to this film. I am planning on watching it again in the near future, seeing what I can catch and what will stand out on a second round when I’m not thinking of comparing and contrasting the source material with what ends up on the screen.

Best Ripley Overall: Matt Damon

I mean, I feel like Damon really, really captured the heart of the character, so while I was frustrated with some aspects of the 1999 film (justice for Dickie Greenleaf’s characterization!), I think that on the whole and comparing them all, this Ripley was the best one. He’s both horrifying in action but also relatable in his insecurities, and while I don’t want to call him ‘likable’, per se, he’s definitely an anti-hero in that I wanted to keep watching him weasel his way out of everything. At least until the end when he heel turn is fully complete. But Damon really portrays all of the facets that we have come to expect from Tom Ripley, humanizing him in ways without making him a hero or excusing his actions.

And with that, my “Ripley’s Reviews” series come to a close. I’m brainstorming other review series I can tackle in the future, but this one was a treat to take on. So long, Tom Ripley. It was a pleasure.

This post may contain affiliate links for books we recommend.  Read the full disclosure here.

“Ripley’s Reviews” is an ongoing series where I will review every book in Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley” Series, as well as multiple screen adaptations of the novels. I will post my reviews on the first Thursday of the month, and delve into the twisted mind of one Tom Ripley and all the various interpretations that he has come to life within. 

TV Mini-Series: “Ripley” (2024)

We have come to the final “Ripliad” adaptation, in the form of the 2024 Miniseries “Ripley”. This was, interestingly enough, the thing that inspired me to do this entire blog series, as I saw it on my Netflix, started it, and then thought ‘huh….. I should really re-read the first book’. Which in turn turned into ‘Or MAYBE I should take on the ENTIRE series!’ So I turned off “Ripley”, and decided to save it. And about a year later, I was back, booting up this miniseries once more. “Ripley” stars a few people I am familiar with. The first is Andrew Scott, who I knew best from the movie “Pride” and the show “Sherlock”, who plays Tom Ripley. The next is Dakota Fanning, who plays Marge. I think the only thing I’ve seen her in is “The Runaways”, but she was solid in that. And finally we had Johnny Flynn as Dickie, who I had only seen in the 2020 version of “Emma” where he played Knightley. There was also Eliot Sumner playing Freddie, but I hadn’t seen them in anything before this. I went in with high hopes.

For the positives, I do have a fair amount of praise. The first is that this entire mini-series is brilliantly shot, and it captures both beauty and horror in a way that I found stunning. The black and white coloring makes things all the more stark, and there are scenes in this that took my breath away. In particular, the scene where Tom murders Dickie in the boat really stands out; it’s incredibly abrupt, it’s violent and jarring, and the way that it just keeps going through the murder itself and the way that Tom takes steps to cover it up were so unnerving I had to pause it a couple of times. We also get some beautiful shots of Italian cities, while also finding claustrophobia and lots of tension as Tom walks through various streets. This show takes its time with the story, lingering on its cinematography to set a scene and build tension.

And for the most part, I did enjoy the casting. I thought that Dakota Fanning as Marge was a great choice, and I really appreciated the way that this story presents her, not as a naive and incredibly kind love interest, but as someone who is a bit of a sour puss, but also immediately put off and suspicious of Tom when he just happens to re-enter her friend Dickie’s life by pure coincidence. Even when Tom ‘fesses up’, she isn’t sure, and I liked a more wary Marge in this story. I also thought that Andrew Scott was probably the most sinister Tom we have seen yet, with a cold calculating way about him as he ingratiates himself into Dickie’s life, and it feels as if he has made a decision about targeting and disposing of Dickie almost from the jump. Scott can play sinister, as we have seen in “Sherlock”, and in this he is a truly unnerving Ripley, deeply scary and cold. He is perhaps the most robotic of psychopaths that we have seen of a Ripley characterization, but I really enjoyed how much he scared me.

But, my biggest issue with this mini-series, as gorgeous as it is and as terrifying as Andrew Scott is and as perfect as Dakota Fanning is… Guys, I sincerely feel that Andrew Scott is a bit too old to play Ripley. And I feel that Johnny Flynn is too old to be playing Dickie (and I am saying this as someone who is only a little younger than he is). When Tom and Dickie are in their twenties, I am more inclined to buy Dickie’s devil may care privileged holidaying, and I am more inclined to believe him letting Ripley attach to him because of their supposed college connection. But when Dickie is in his late 30s, I just don’t buy his father not taking measures long before this moment. AND ON TOP OF THAT, we see Ripley running his small cons and schemes, but when it comes to bigger ones he loses his nerve pretty quickly, so I find it difficult to believe that he has been able to be this kind of con man for this long without being caught or without having to pivot off the path due to a lack of sustainability. And to almost add insult to injury, this adaptation felt not nearly as queer as I had hoped it would be. I fully recognize that Highsmith claimed that Ripley was never meant to be gay, but I was hoping that after the 1999 film there would be some kind of precedent to at least push it a little further that the strange quasi-sexual obsession that the Damon film had, and that the book had some undeniable hints at, with Ripley focusing a little too much on Dickie and his charismatic self and seeming to long to not just be him, but possess him. In this adaptation Dickie is kind of lackluster in most ways, and by taking out his dynamic personality we don’t get a captivating obsession from Ripley. It feels more like it’s just a momentary focus for the sake of the hunt, which isn’t BAD, per se. As i said, I find this version of Tom to be absolutely chilling. But without the obsession with Dickie feeling somewhat personal, it takes out a layer I had hoped it would be exploring and toying with, and it made it thud all the more.

So while it’s gorgeous and I enjoyed the interpretations of a few of the characters, overall “Ripley” had weird choices that kind of made it stumble for me. Next time I’m going to do a conclusion write up of my entire “Ripley” experience, and after mulling on it a bit I will be curious to see where this one ends up. I do recommend checking it out for the stunning visuals and the way that some of the scenes play out.

This post may contain affiliate links for books we recommend.  Read the full disclosure here.

“Ripley’s Reviews” is an ongoing series where I will review every book in Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley” Series, as well as multiple screen adaptations of the novels. I will post my reviews on the first Thursday of the month, and delve into the twisted mind of one Tom Ripley and all the various interpretations that he has come to life within. Up next is a BBC Radio 4 production based on “The Boy Who Followed Ripley”.

Radio Play: “The Boy Who Followed Ripley” (2009)

Given that the quality of the “Ripliad” had a considerable dip when we got to the final two books in the series, it’s not really surprising that they haven’t received any film adaptations. Because of this I wasn’t really expecting to do any more exploration of these books after my initial reviews, but then I found out that BBC Radio 4 did adaptations of ALL of the Tom Ripley books. And on top of that I found out that Nicholas Hoult played the role of Frank Pearson, the titular “Boy Who Followed Ripley”, and in that moment I knew I wanted to check it out.

I’ve listened to a few radio plays/adaptations in the past (my family had the entire NPR Radio “Star Wars” adaptation series, and we also had the BBC “Lord of the Rings”, both used on long car rides to Iowa), but it had been awhile, and “The Boy Who Followed Ripley” was an interesting reintroduction to the medium. It’s only an hour long, which seemed like it would be too short, but I actually found the compact timeframe to aid the story along. While the book felt a bit meandering and muddled to me, this play had a clear storyline that was straightforward and easy to follow. Sure, there are sometimes some clunky moments in the narration to set a very visual scene, but the play makes the solid choice to have Ripley (played by Ian Hart, more on him and Hoult in a bit) act as a first person narrator who can explain what is happening in addition to the dialogue. The BBC obviously knows what its doing, and it knew exactly which parts to pull from the book and how to present it into a condensed hour long play.

Ian Hart as Ripley and Nicholas Hoult as Frank are both very good in their roles, with Hart bringing in a sinister edge to go with his strange moments of affection towards his new friend, and Hoult sounding earnest and needy. I greatly enjoyed their chemistry, and thought that both of them really pulled out the strange undertones of the relationship the two characters have. I felt like the story leaned a bit into the queer subtext (we do, indeed, get our moment of Ripley getting in drag to stop Frank’s kidnapping, and I was overjoyed!), and Hart has some solid moments of vulnerability and bleak self awareness that I haven’t seen in a Ripley character since Matt Damon, without making him too sympathetic. That said, I didn’t listen to the other plays that cover the other books, so I’m not sure about how sympathetic they want him to be in the series as a whole. And Hoult was so subtle with Frank’s feelings and motivations, that his end hit harder for me than it did in the book. Man, Hoult is a treasure!

Overall, I’m happy I checked this out! It’s simple and yet more powerful that the source material. I probably won’t do any more of the BBC Radio 4 adaptations of the “Ripley” series, but this was well done. Up next is my final adaptation of a “Ripley” story, the Netflix series “Ripley” starring Andrew Scott as Ripley, Johnny Flynn as Dickie, and Dakota Fanning as Marge.

This post may contain affiliate links for books we recommend.  Read the full disclosure here.

“Ripley’s Reviews” is an ongoing series where I will review every book in Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley” Series, as well as multiple screen adaptations of the novels. I will post my reviews on the first Thursday of the month, and delve into the twisted mind of one Tom Ripley and all the various interpretations that he has come to life within. Up next is the fourth film adaptation of a “Ripley” book I’m covering, the 2005 film “Ripley Under Ground”.

Film: “Ripley Under Ground” (2005)

When I was doing my research on adaptations on the Ripliad, one of the films that was mentioned was the movie “Ripley Under Ground”, though many times it was also mentioned that it wasn’t easy to find. I had NEVER heard of this adaptation of a Tom Ripley book, which intrigued me. I was even more intrigued when I saw that Barry Pepper was playing Tom, as I know him from films like “The Green Mile” and “Crawl” and the thought of him as Ripley was interesting. This film came out to very limited release in 2005, and yes I can confirm it wasn’t an easy film to find on streaming (I couldn’t even find a trailer that wasn’t in German, hence the lack of link above). But I did find it, and committed to watching it as part of the Ripley series on the blog. After all, just because it was kind of lost to time, it had some promise. It’s a Ripley story! It has a cast. Wellll…. sadly, it’s the weakest adaptation yet, and it’s not even close.

I’m going to spoil some things in this, because without doing so I can’t fully explain some of my issues with the film. Fair warning!

It’s a very…. confusing adaptation. Firstly, this movie has basically treated this story like a standalone story, erasing “The Talented Mr. Ripley” and therein completely shifting Ripley’s backstory, history of violence, and desperation to keep up appearances. Instead he’s a poor wannabe actor (no Dickie Greenleaf murder, no money to inherit from his parents) who does have a history of conning people (after all, he cons his way out of paying rent, and has conned his way into his theater school), but has NO history of the murder and sociopathy the original character has. We’ve seen a standalone film of a sequel before, as “The American Friend” is very much a standalone and a very different Ripley. But for this kind of change to work, I REALLY need a, well, TALENTED Mr. Ripley to make up for it. Dennis Hopper brings that. Barry Pepper, unfortunately, does not. He barely has anything of a personality to speak of, and because of that is not compelling at all. It also removes a lot of his darker impulses, basically changing the one very clear murder Ripley commits in the book to an accident that Ripley has to clean up after. And to make things even more strange and confusing, the movie decides that Heloise… yes, Ripley’s naive and generally harmless wife Heloise… has to be something of a femme fatal and become a HUGE accomplice to him in his crimes, even going to far as to suggesting that they murder her father for his fortune right before the credits roll.

I’ve been kind of mean to Barry Pepper, and but it’s warranted because I would say he’s probably the weakest member of the cast. Everyone else does a pretty good job. Willem Dafoe chews the scenery as art collector Murchison, even if at times it’s a little over the top. I quite enjoyed Alan Cumming as Ripley’s co-conspirator Jeff Constant, and we got a bit of a gender bent other co-conspirator with Claire Forlani as Cynthia, Derwatt’s girlfriend at the time of his death. Tom Wilkinson is the detective on the case, and I always like seeing him in things. But the stand out is Ian Hart as the guilt ridden and unstable Bernard, the friend that Ripley et al pressure into forging the paintings after they all witness Derwatt’s death. It’s a shame because I did enjoy the ensemble (OH AND ALSO we have a small role for Simon Callow of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and “Amadeus” fame!), but with the lead being so lackluster it really brought the rest of the movie down. You really have to have an engaging Tom Ripley for a Tom Ripley film to work.

“Ripley Under Ground” was a baffling and disappointing adaptation. It’s pretty clear there is a reason that it has fallen by the wayside when compared to other films that strive to tell the Tom Ripley story. Up next I’m going to do something a little different. There isn’t a film adaptation of “The Boy Who Followed Ripley”. But there IS a BBC Radio Program adaptation, with Ian Hart (yes the same Ian Hart from above) as Tom Ripley, and Nicholas Hoult as Frank! So that’s up next!

This post may contain affiliate links for books we recommend.  Read the full disclosure here.

“Ripley’s Reviews” is an ongoing series where I will review every book in Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley” Series, as well as multiple screen adaptations of the novels. I will post my reviews on the first Thursday of the month, and delve into the twisted mind of one Tom Ripley and all the various interpretations that he has come to life within. Up next is the third film adaptation of a “Ripley” book I’m covering, the 1977 film “The American Friend”.

Film: “The American Friend (Der amerikanische Freund” (1977)

When I started this series of reviewing books and films about Tom Ripley, I didn’t realize that there were so many adaptations of the various books. I had clearly heard of the Matt Damon film and the “Ripley” series on Netflix (look for that in the future), but goodness! There are quite a few more! And NEVER in a MILLION years would I have ever thought that Dennis Hopper would be playing Tom Ripley. Dennis Hopper!?!? My main associations with Hopper as an actor are as follows: “Apocalypse Now!”, “Speed”, and “Blue Velvet”. He’s fantastic and nails all of these roles, but reserved they are NOT. And Tom Ripley is a cold, calculating, patient, and restrained character. I am not sure if Hopper has ever played restrained (let me know if I’m wrong!). But in “The American Friend”, he is Tom Ripley, and he’s…. KIND OF restrained. And interestingly enough, it does, indeed, work.

“The American Friend” is mostly an adaptation of “Ripley’s Game”, in which Ripley manipulates a working class picture framer to do his dirty work of carrying out a couple hits against some mafia figures, which Ripley didn’t want to do himself. It also takes the plot of “Ripley Under Ground” of the art forgeries and inserts them into this film, so it’s KIND of an adaptation of that as well, though it’s more for context I’d say. As an adaptation of “Ripley’s Game” it follows the plot mostly closely, though Ripley himself is a bit of a departure. And it probably is because Hopper is playing him. Instead of a put together and subtle posh fella living a luxurious quiet life, THIS Ripley feels like he could lose control at any minute, making him menacing in a different way. Yes, he does have a lot more calmly sinister moments, but it’s Dennis Hopper, and the more implied fiery villainy is a departure, but not in a bad way. I’m admittedly probably going to like Hopper in most anything I see him in, so I could be biased. But I thought that his Ripley was interesting and refreshing. And I really enjoyed the chemistry he had with Bruno Ganz, who plays manipulated picture framer Johnathan Zimmerman (they changed his name in this from Trevanny; not sure if it’s because this character is German instead of British, but it doesn’t really affect anything). This kind of feels like a buddy comedy in some ways as these two play off each other, since in this Ripley genuinely feels shame about his actions. Well, as much as he CAN, given that he’s still monstrous. He just feels a bit bad about it. He’s not the Ripley I’ve come to expect, but I still thought it was a fun interpretation. Cowboy hat and all (book Ripley would NEVER).

Speaking of Ganz, if I felt back for Johnathan in the book, I REALLY felt bad for him in the film. I think that that’s in part because he is just so worried about his wife and son, believing that he is dying of his until now stable blood disease (and like in the book, no, Ripley tricked him with a fake doctor and diagnosis) and that they will be penniless should he die. I am wholly unfamiliar with Ganz as an actor, as I have not seen much German cinema, but man he just broke my heart. You just feel his anxiety and desperation when he interacts with his family. I felt the same disgust for Ripley and his stupid mean plan as I did when I was reading the book. Ganz nailed it. And like I said above, the chemistry between him and Hopper was unexpected and sometimes, dare I say, kind of sweet?

As a thriller this is very well done, it’s intense and unrelenting. The tension is palpable and there are some scenes that truly had me at the edge of my seat, and the cinematography had some really great bits (I’m thinking of a particular scene where we are seeing Zimmerman flee and we are tracking him through his movements via the security camera footage). I also really loved a chase scene on a beach. Wim Wenders directed this and he had a very clear vision that translated well on the screen, with intensity and grittiness to spare.

So at this point in adaptations, I would say that Damon’s “The Talented Mr. Ripley” is still the best, followed by “The American Friend”, and then “Purple Moon”. But they’ve all been really enjoyable! Perhaps it should be no surprise that Tom Ripley is a character that translates well to the screen. Up next I am going to watch “Ripley Under Ground”, with Barry Pepper as Tom Ripley!

This post may contain affiliate links for books we recommend.  Read the full disclosure here.

“Ripley’s Reviews” is an ongoing series where I will review every book in Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley” Series, as well as multiple screen adaptations of the novels. I will post my reviews on the first Thursday of the month, and delve into the twisted mind of one Tom Ripley and all the various interpretations that he has come to life within. Up next is the second film adaptation of a “Ripley” book I’m covering, the 1960 film “Purple Noon”.

Film: “Purple Noon (Plein soleil)” (1960)

It wasn’t until I started researching the Tom Ripley novels and all of their adaptations that I heard about “Purple Noon”, the 1960 French thriller that was the first Ripley screen adaptation. I am not as familiar with mid 20th century French cinema as a whole, though I’ve seen some classics like “Breathless”, “Hiroshima, Mon Amor”, and “Les Diaboliques”, so this title was brand new to me. But I was absolutely interested to see what a French adaptation of “The Talented Mr. Ripley” would look like. And it wasn’t at all what I expected. But in a mostly positive way. Though there are MANY differences between not only “Purple Noon” and “The Talented Mr. Ripley” the film, but also the book.

One of the biggest changes (of many!) is that in “Purple Noon”, Ripley’s object of sexual desire isn’t Dickie (or Philippe in this case), but it’s Marge. While Tom is still very much covetous of Philippe’s wealth and status, not once did I get the sense that he was into his pal, but man oh man was it pretty clear to me that he had the hots for Marge. It’s an interesting change, and one that simultaneously did and didn’t really work for me. I wholly understand that in 1960 the queer subtext was probably going to be left a bit behind, even in a French film, but it was still a little bit jarring to have Tom have his eyes on Marge while Philippe is definitely more a means to an end for funding and status. I kind of wondered why we even had that element when, in the original story, it’s really not at the forefront and one could argue isn’t needed. But it also kind of worked for me because the chemistry between Tom and Marge is there. It probably helps that Alain Delon and Marie Laforêt are both gorgeous and the backdrops were amazing and oof, they just crackled on screen. Which is, again, so strange to say about Tom Ripley given that in my mind he is a gay man. But hey, I’m going to allow it. I quite enjoyed their interactions. And I will say that there is a particular scene that was pretty sexy, even if the time period of the film means we didn’t get to see much.

But it’s also very different from the book in other ways, including Tom’s plotting of murdering Philippe (in that he plots it at all!), the point in the timeline where our story begins (we start well after Tom has cuddled up with Philippe in Italy), and even how things start to perhaps unravel towards the end. Though all that said a good chunk of it in the middle follows the book pretty well, including the Freddie Miles plot point and some of the cat and mouse games that Tom keeps going as he passes himself off as Philippe. But then it starts to shift off again. I’m a bit conflicted about all of this, in all honesty. On one hand, it feels like there are enough changes that it doesn’t REALLY feel like a well done adaptation of “The Talented Mr. Ripley”, and that the liberties make it weaker. But on the other hand, it is such a well done film on its own standing that I really, really enjoyed it. The cinematography is gorgeous, the acting is really well done, and I was still quite entertained by the story even if I was thinking ‘that’s not quite right’ more often than not. And it also has the appropriate levels of creepy when it comes to Tom, even if he was a bit different from what I was expected and used to.

So is it a faithful adaptation? Not as much as I had expected. But it’s a well done film in its own right. I enjoyed watching “Purple Noon” and fully get why it’s a Criterion Collection member. Up next I’m going to take on “The American Friend”, which is an adaptation of “Ripley’s Game”. With Dennis Hopper as Ripley!

This post may contain affiliate links for books we recommend.  Read the full disclosure here.

“Ripley’s Reviews” is an ongoing series where I will review every book in Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley” Series, as well as multiple screen adaptations of the novels. I will post my reviews on the first Thursday of the month, and delve into the twisted mind of one Tom Ripley and all the various interpretations that he has come to life within. Up next is the first film adaptation of a “Ripley” book I’m covering, the 1999 film “The Talented Mr. Ripley”.

Film: “The Talented Mr. Ripley” (1999)

I remember when “The Talented Mr. Ripley” came out. I was a freshman in high school, and Matt Damon was still riding high off of his turns in “Good Will Hunting” and “Saving Private Ryan” (and “Dogma” for this Kevin Smith fan, though it would be a couple years later that I fully dove into his whole deal). When I saw a trailer for “The Talented Mr. Ripley” it all seemed like another prestigious dramatic role for him, but then we got a pretty creepy turn as it went on and my 14 year old self was scandalized but intrigued. Toss in some Gwyneth Paltrow and a very new to me Jude Law (I was swooning) and I wanted to see it….. But didn’t get around to it until much later in life. I wanted to start with this film in my reviews of the films because it was the one that got Tom Ripley on my radar in the first place, and I was curious to see how it would hold up. AKA I was curious to see if it was actually as gay coded as I remembered and if it was as good of an adaptation I remembered. And I have great news: yes to both!

There are a number of changes that the film makes from the book, some of which work for me while others do not. I’ll start with what I did like in terms of changes. The first is that this movie really leans in to the whole ‘Tom is very much in obsessive love with Dickie’, and given how Ripley has been seen as a queer character even though Highsmith claimed he wasn’t this definitely worked. It makes it so that Tom’s longing isn’t only about coveting the things that he cannot have in terms of wealth and power, but also coveting a person that he cannot have. I’m not certain that it makes him seem more sympathetic (he’s still killing people, and one murder is particularly upsetting and ties into his identity), but it does make for a bit of a more complex character as the movie goes on. I definitely felt some pity for him as he pined for Dickie and is desperate for his affection and companionship, and thought that Damon played that angle of Tom really well. I also quite enjoyed the addition of Meredith (played by the iconic Cate Blanchett), a charming and naíve socialite that Tom meets almost immediately in Italy and impulsively passes himself off as Dickie towards her not an hour after arriving, which causes problems down the line. She kind of felt a bit like Heloise, Tom’s clueless but pretty nice wife in the books. Blanchett is always fantastic, and I really loved Meredith, even if she was a bit of a dope. But then she had no reason to not believe Tom, and it’s another layer of his manipulation skills that adds to his horribleness. Gwyneth Paltrow’s Marge is also expanded upon, and I really enjoyed seeing the direction that they take her, especially when it comes to her suspicions towards Tom as the story goes on.

But that leads into one of the changes that didn’t work as well for me, and that is how they basically assassinated Dickie’s character in this. In the book he is definitely a cad, and is blinded by his own privilege. But the movie REALLY trashes him. He’s unintelligent, condescending towards Marge, he’s having an affair with a local woman who he also impregnates, which leads to her killing herself because he refuses to take responsibility, and then when we get to the boat scene where Tom kills him with an oar, it is changed a bit to make it seem like Tom hit him in a moment of hurt and desperation and regretted it, only for Dickie to try and kill him. Which makes Tom fighting back and killing him a little easier to swallow. By making Dickie a villain in his own right it really takes away from Tom’s own reprehensible nature (that isn’t to say he doesn’t make up for it; there is a scene before the end of the film that makes it clear Tom has passed the point of no return that was chilling as hell). I just kind of felt back for the way book Dickie is thrown under the bus by film Dickie. Jude Law really is the perfect cad, though.

All in all I really enjoyed this adaptation! It’s eerie and unsettling, and I think that it’s a great portrayal of what Tom Ripley is, while giving him a little more complexity. Next up I’m going to tackle the 1960 film “Purple Noon”, the first adaptation of “The Talented Mr. Ripley”!