In late 1950s New York, Tom Ripley, a young underachiever, is sent to Italy to retrieve Dickie Greenleaf, a rich and spoiled millionaire playboy. But when the errand fails, Ripley takes extreme measures.
The 1950s. Manhattan lavatory attendant, Tom Ripley, borrows a Princeton jacket to play piano at a garden party. When the wealthy father of a recent Princeton grad chats Tom up, Tom pretends to know the son and is soon offered $1,000 to go to Italy to convince Dickie Greenleaf to return home. In Italy, Tom attaches himself to Dickie and to Marge, Dickie's cultured fiancée, pretending to love jazz and harboring homoerotic hopes as he soaks in luxury. Besides lying, Tom's talents include impressions and forgery, so when the handsome and confident Dickie tires of Tom, dismissing him as a bore, Tom goes to extreme lengths to make Greenleaf's privileges his own. Written by
The scenes set in New York City that open the film were originally shot in Rome but were deemed unsatisfactory and later reshot in New York City. See more »
Ripley sets the dates at the Café D. at the foot of the Spanish Steps to 10.15 (Meredith) and 10.30 (Marge and Peter). The clock shows 4.50 P.M. and the light is obviously a late afternoon sun. See more »
If I could just go back... if I could rub everything out... starting with myself.
See more »
The opening title uses all the adjectives of the complete title before cutting to the final "The Talented Mr. Ripley". See more »
Good but the original was better...which is usually the case.
I had a much harder time watching "The Talented Mr. Ripley" compared to the average person. This is because I have already seen the original version, "Purple Noon" (1960 with Alain Delon). So all along, I knew where the film was going and how it would end. So, there was no suspense for me and I kept comparing the new film with an older film that I adored--making my enjoyment a bit muted for this Matt Damon film.
Normally, I might talk about the plot or how the two versions are different. However, this film is clearly a thriller with many exciting twists--so if I talk about it, I might give away what will happen. Suffice to say, in the Matt Damon version, what ultimately happens seems less planned and much more spontaneous--and certainly less evil. Both are very good films, however, well made and with lovely locale shooting and terrific acting. And, since they put a different spin on the plot, it would make for a great double-feature to watch them both. If asked to choose which one I'd like, I preferred the original film--but both are nice.
8 of 13 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?