MovieChat Forums > Ripley's Game (2003) Discussion > the movie felt cheap

the movie felt cheap

posted 13 years ago by punch-drunk_love
7 replies | jump to latest

*** minor spoilers ***

first of all, roger ebert put this film into his great movie selection. wow. after watching the first 30 minutes i couldn't believe it.

the first scene before the credits already seemed like amateurish filmmaking. the clumsiness of the conversation with the artdealer (horrible acting and script) and the strange struggle and killing of the bodyguard. what was that? bad cinematography? bad editing? i was almost ashamed of how bad this scene worked!

after an hour i kind of accommodated myself to the movie, mainly because of malkovich interesting approach to the role. but there were still many occasions on which i was taken out of the movie. sometimes the bad script, sometimes the bad rhythm of scenes. when i saw the bad russian guy who was murdered in the zoo or the bodyguards who were strangled in the train, my tolerance was challenged to the limit. bad, bad, bad acting/casting. amateurish it seemed.

after watching the film, i was reminded of how difficult it is to make a professional movie. maybe this i also the reason, this movie did not get a theatrical release.

[–] TheFilmFreak1 13 years ago

I completely agree! A reprehensible contrast to the superb mise-en-scene of both the excellent 'Plein Soleil' and the masterful 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'. I did love Malkovich's performance, though.

[–] mattbg 13 years ago

I don't know if it's just because I'm like John Malkovich a lot, but I don't know what you're talking about! This is up there as one of my favourite movies, and I like it more than I do "Talented".

[–] Husskade 13 years ago

I have to agree with you.

I've heard this book done as a 90 minute radio play and was absorbed so wanted to see the film version and I have to say I was disappointed.
The film (as is said elsewhere on this board ) has a distinct 70's feel to it both in the filming and the awful music.

Ray Winstone was doing his usual shouty thing....(I have no idea why he does it because he can act but shouty seems to be his default) Dougray Scott was not vulnerable enough somehow and seemed distinctly uncomfortable in his role.Malkovich was good...the completely dead eyes and stillness of him work for the amoral,totally manipulative Ripley discomforted from his secure self created life.(on a personal note to me....that monotone does get a bit wearing,heresy I know)

I've come to the conclusion that this was a novel that actually works better in one owns imagination and does not lend itself well to the big screen even though there is massive action,the story is about the psychology of the characters involved.
It's not a case of a 'the book was better than...' it's a case of the book should be heard maybe because it's still the interaction of your own imagination with the words either on the page or in the ether but not seen.

Shame really...I wanted to like it.

'He's a very naughty boy!'

[–] Suriname86 12 years ago

It not only felt cheap but, strangely, it felt very dated as well. I couldn't believe it was made in 2002. I felt like I was watching late-80s/early 90s film; even the background music during some of the dramatic scenes sounded straight out of the late 80s. Really strange film with a strange atmosphere. Another problem I had was the plot: it felt a bit weak. I agree with Jaydies: it should've stayed a book as the plot doesn't lend itself to a strong film, especially when the actors aren't really stepping up. Dougary Scott was terrible in this.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Jah - it seemed like one of those British crime dramas we see on TV over here.

Plot Hole - the most overused and least understood phrase at IMDb

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BadCash 9 years ago

Couldn't agree more, it felt like I was watching some british 80's movie or something... jeez what a crappy production, especially compared to the very well directed "The talented mr Ripley". This movie had zero atmosphere, bad casting, awful acting, weak plot - in short nothing appealing at all.

How it can have an average score of 6.7 is just beyond me... I can perhaps see how it could get 5/10 if it was totally unrelated to "The talented mr Ripley", but because of the association my expectations were way to high for this kind of B movie.

4/10, you've been warned.

------------------------
This message was brought to you by the numbers 1 and 0.