MovieChat Forums > Ripley's GameĀ (2002) Discussion > Without Gwyneth they oughtn't have bothe...

Without Gwyneth they oughtn't have bothered


No Gwyneth no start. This film will do well in those bohemian little leftist cinemas where the smell of ganja lingers in the cheap-seats. Without Gwyneth no-one else will give a toss.

reply

[deleted]

hey, you're right...only those films that show at your massive megaplexes are worth going to see right? Wow, Gwyneth should be in like every film or they just won't be worth watching...doodle...

reply

Oh I TOTALLY agree with THAT comment... not. Come out of your shell. Because it doesn't have a certain actress it's not worthy giving a try? Rubbish. Complete rubbish.

reply

i loved 'the talented mr ripley', it had so much style, beauty and darkness to it!
so, im very excited to see the continuation of some of my beloved characters, but i haven't heard anythig good yet. ray winstone has resently expressed how much he hated filming it and how he wouldn't do it again.
plus, half way through filming malkovich took over directional duties from cavani, as there were conflicts of interest.
oh dear, it doesn't bode well.
BUT, all this turmoil might produce a quality piece of cinema - i hope anyway!

reply

Saw it today and thought it a was pretty fair flick.

Couple of comments:

Malkovich makes an outstanding Ripley and has the potential to create another dark screen persona along the lines of Hannibal Lecter. I hope we see more of him in this role.

However, about halfway through, the patently amoral, vengeful, psychopathic Ripley seemed to have a change of heart and decided to try and extricate the poor sap who he had dropped in the sh*t. This was not consonant with the tone of the movie to that point. In this context, I was interested to to read the comment from esaias, above.

What didn't Ray Winstone like about it? No new territory for him.




reply


Incidentally, when you have Chiara Caselli and Lena Headey, what on earth would you want with Gwynneth?

reply

Apparently the problems on the set were caused by language barriers: an english-language script, shot mainly in berlin, with a multi-national crew, and an italian director, who instructs malkovich in french!
while on set in september 2001 malkovich said, 'allegedly we finish on saturday but you just never know how these things go.' Co-star winstone, meanwhile was equally unhappy. 'I feel that i've just walked through the film. It's the language barrier. It's like having two mobile phones in your ear at the same time.'
Cavani, though, was nonplussed. 'We wouild have needed about two more weeks.' She never got those weeks - soon after she said this, she left the production, with Malkovich taking over.

so hendem, did the filming change in style? did the later part make it a lesser film for you?

reply

Yes, a change in style and a character acting in an inconsistent manner. The early part of the film went to some lengths to establish Ripley as a totally amoral, ruthless and self-serving individual - albeit not without some charm. A typical screen psychopath. Later on he appears to have been stricken by conscience - and we know that psychopaths don't have a conscience.

Maybe it's more of a screenwriting issue. But yes, it did make it a lesser film for me.

reply

Hendem, Ripley's not a psychopath, but a sociopath. A psychopath wouldn't get married or "relationships" with others. In the books he is also friends with Christopher Greenleaf, Dickie's cousin. Socialpath can have "relationships" with others, that's why they are harder to catch. Ted Bundy was a socialpath, The Son of Sam was a psychopath. This book is the the third book to the series. He has some conscience, but not without alterior motives. If you read "The Boy Who Followed Ripley", you'll understand.

reply

[deleted]

what the ***** has gwyneths character got to do with this film/....ignorant of the story are we or just plain thick?

reply

Am I crazy, or did I really see Gwyneth sitting in the audience during the concert of the final scene? Anyone else notice this?

reply

Yeah, man, what the hell? Are you saying that the only good thing in The Talented Mr. Ripley was Paltrow??? No, seriously, answer me that. I want to see it printed in your writing that there was nothing else in that film that made it worth watching. Do it. I dare you. If you really honestly think so, do it. And while you're at it, say that John Malkovich makes it not worth seeing. Go on, bring it.

reply

The only problem with your theory is that her charachter, Marge Sherwood, wasn't even included in the book. I really think you should reassess your ideas. You see if she would have been in it she couldn't have been the same character. So other than her character not being in it and her impossibly of playing a different role, thats a great complaint.

reply

The sooner we English get our language back the better - it makes me cringe to hear how many Americans pervert our spoken word so - let them get their own language ! At least Gwyneth respects pure English and does her utmost to present our language as if it were her Mother tongue. Rene Zwellweger is another who appears to respect good English. So I say again - you Americans get your own language and stop 'prostituting' ours. Dingste

reply

by the way gwyneth character wasn't even in the book is was made for the movie version

reply

LIQUE, I have the book and read the book (Talented Mr. Ripley). Marge is in the book. It's Cate Blanchett's character Meredith Logue that was created for the movie. Marge is in the "Talented" movie and in "Purple Noon" (a 1960s version of "The Talented Mr. Ripley".

reply

except for people that have a genuine interest in the film.

reply

Gwyneth's the worst.

reply

What's a Gwyneth?

reply