Which is better?

Thank you for all your replies. I forgot all about this post, and now I look back two years later and think what a question! I don't think "better" was the word needed here, but I am grateful for your attempts at answers to such an ambiguous question. What am I saying attempts? They are incredibly helpful. Hmm maybe I should stop debating with myself, I tend to waffle too much, really all I wanted to say was thanks for your help!

Isn't it scary the word "therapist" is the words "the" and "rapist" put together?

[deleted]

I'm not sure that you can say, as some people have pointed here, that Ripley's Game has little in common with Talented Mr. Ripley. It's not hard to consider the character in the Malkovich movie as an older version of the one performed by Matt Damon. But while Matt's Ripley had many interesting angles (since he was beginning to be the conscienceless crook that he ended up being, but was still haunted by remorse) Malkovich's Ripley is defined. (This is a natural consequense of the fact that, as far as I'm concerned, Talented is based in the first novel, while RG is based in a forth one or something). In Ripley's game Malkovich says something like "when I was young, conscience troubled me, but not anymore". This difference of character, enhanced by the additions in the story courtesy of the Minghella's version, at least for me made "Talented". more interesting.
RG is not a bad movie, but is hardly the interesting character study that Talented presents. It's entertaining, but as a saturday night (good) entertainment.
About who made a better performance, Matt Damon or John Malkovich, the main thing I can say about it is that each one did a good job, according to the Ripley they were representing. I not sure if Matt Damon could have made the cold Ripley of RG, but i'm sure as hell that neither Malkovich would have represented well the bold but vulnerable Ripley in Talented. And of course I'm not talking about age (Malkovich is too old to play Talented's Ripley) but about performance styles.
In that regard, I agree with the user "audience" when he praises Matt Damon's performance. There are many dimensions of this character in Talented that the task was not easy, but Matt did it well, worthy of something more that the Golden Globe nomination that he had.
About John Malkovich's performance, I think that the older Ripley suits him very well, but I have a problem with his acting. It's one dimensional. He acts here the same as he did in Dangerous Liasons or Portrait of a lady. I'm not saying that it's a bad performance, but I think Malkovich is one of those cases in which the actor makes the character be adapted to him, not the other way around. So his performance is OK, but is the usual Malkovich work.
Anyway, whomever have seen Talented, maybe should give RG a try, just for kicks, as I did. But be aware that the mood of the movie is completely different. With that warning in mind, you may enjoy RG...as I did.

I had no idea what this movie was called until I looked up the production the day after seeing it on a satellite channel that doesn't do EPG, so I had no idea. Basically I started viewing it when Reeves is talking to Trevanny I believe for the first time, followed by a scene with Reeves talking to Tom while he's performing yoga on the floor. So, you can imagine I had no idea whatsoever that this had a connection with Matt Damon's film. And I have no idea what I missed previous.

My first reaction when I saw the title in the listing of J Malkovich's credits, I thought to myself, this film was entirely mis-named. Then I opened the page on the movie itself and the reason for title became clear.

I found it utterly engrossing. Malkovich is creepy and disturbing (as usual), with a haughty intellectualism that should have tipped me off. Winstone was good in his role as a go-between without being too servile to Ripley and too much of a dick to Trevanny.

And then there's Dougray Scott. He shows the moral dilemma of Trevanny written on his face in the anguish of the knowledge that his leukemia won't allow him to survive to see his family grow. Should he take the money, do Ripley's bidding, rid the world of a bit of evil and leave his family in good straits or should he follow his own sense of morality? His death as remembered by Ripley at the concert hall shows him to be at peace, a calmness and heroism in his eyes as he saves Tom's life by literally taking a bullet for him.

In the end, I liked this movie very much. Better than "Talented"? It's hard to say, because it is so different: different actors, different setting, different situation, different vision. "Game" is good. And so was "Talented". I look forward eventually to what I imagine is going to be called "Ripley's End".