cant help but compare to the movie - Ripley (2024) Discussion

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6033) a month ago

The movie Greenleaf is kind of a jerk, actually. See the boat scene on youtube for an example. He's much nicer in the new program.

reply

[–] moviebuff00 (452) a month ago

i dont think he was a jerk at all. he was completely justified in saying what he did to tom. tom overstayed his welcome and creeped him out with his homosexual tendencies. also at the same time, there's a bit of dickie using dad's money through tom. it's not black and white. without dickie being able to use tom for something, how would a nerd like tom get the red carpet treatment from dickie? the point is, movie dickie was very charismatic and likeable if he liked you.

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6033) a month ago

In the movie, though, he acted kind of jerky. See how he behaves here:
https://youtu.be/KZaCY8iU_70

reply

[–] letess (1065) a month ago

In the 1999 movie, Dickie (Jude Law) is more of a golden boy. He’s young. He’s an Adonis (think of the bathtub scene) and he’s a heartbreaker. Wasn’t there a local girl that drowned because of him? He has more personality, exudes confidence and is very popular. One of the most compelling scenes is when they went to the jazz club in San Remo. You were in that moment. The other Greenleaf in the series is older because they decided to make the characters older and more desperate. He’s not so insightful. He’s not very good at what he does and is kind of wishy washy. Each of the Marges are a match with each of the Dickies. But one thing is certain, even in Purple Noon, that on that boat, Tom is sickened by Dickie’s criticisms and realizes what his life was going to be like without Dickie and that just couldn’t happen for him. And, as an audience, you are thinking the same thing as Dickie is thinking (and Freddie for that matter). Why do you let this guy hang around? He’s not really even an acquaintance let alone friend. Your family is giving him money. He mimics you in front of the mirror, and he causes problems with Marge.

Still, one of my other favorite scenes in the 1999 movie is Damon in the neon yellow trunks. I think when he was voted People’s sexiest man, Clooney reminded him of that scene in the movie.

reply

[–] letess (1065) a month ago

Tom is a psychopath and he’s a psychopath in the book and a psychopath in this series. In the 1999 film, Damon’s Tom is a naïve love-sick kid and you kind of worry about him but you’re not supposed to. He’s a guy that is guilty and he gets away with it and he’s guilty of other things and he gets away with it and it goes on like that for four more books. He’s always paranoid and you wonder if he’ll ever get caught. You’re nervous watching it all but you’re not rooting for him that way. He wants the lifestyle not the guy. And you can see why. That NYC apartment at his age and at that point in his life was horrible compared to the villa, the palazzo and future chateaus. Btw both series and movie are excellent and so was the first movie in 1960, Purple Noon.

reply

[–] moviebuff00 (452) a month ago

if you cant sympathize with the character and root for him, why would you be nervous if he gets caught?

reply

[–] letess (1065) a month ago

It’s called suspense. Like in Match Point. You’re wondering if he will get caught not hoping he will. Highsmith’s novel went against the Hollywood moral code that says no crime goes unpunished. But, I can see your point, because of all three Ripleys, he’s the least enchanting and you wonder why anybody would want him around just to talk to. He has absolutely no personality. I did love watching how he outwits and slips through all the local police. There are also the haves and the have nots which is front and center in this and it leans towards the latter which is kind of appealing.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6424) 11 days ago

No man, moviebuff is right on the money, and this movie fails on that regard.
In Match Point I was totally rooting for him not to get caught, even if he was a horrible person there were some sides of him that we could agree with.
Same as in Ripley's character in the books and in Minghella's film, he is horrible but we can sympathize with him and his cirumstances, and we can root for him.

In this series all that's lost, most of these points are not finessed at all, and it's impossible to root for him (or anybody else in the story).

reply

[–] Bartholomew (22) a month ago

I thought the opposite. If Dickie is such a night-life-loving playboy, why did he choose to live in such a quiet backwater? It made more sense for the Dickie of the novel and the miniseries who wanted to focus on his painting.

reply

[–] spurtle467 (1518) 16 days ago

Yes I seem to want to compare to the 1999 film as well. I haven't read the novel or seen any other adaptation but to me the movie more clearly outlines the characters' motivations and they come across a bit more believable and make for a more enthralling story.

In the show, the killing of Dickie by Tom comes across as a bit sudden and jarring because he is neither shown to be particularly infatuated with Dickie, nor shown to be especially psychotic up to that point that he would decide on the spot he was going to kill him. Obviously the film's Tom is infatuated with Dickie, so the killing is somewhat justified as he is upset Dickie doesn't want to be around him anymore and they get into a row.

I don't know, there are quite a few things in this show I don't really buy in terms of the characters. Marge doesn't like Tom from nearly the get go but then seems to warm to him towards the end when there is even more reason to be suspicious of him, due to Dickie having disappeared. The character of Freddie was badly cast and with the way he's portrayed I just don't buy that Dickie would even hang out with him. At least in the film you can see why Dickie and Freddie would hang out together. They encapsulate that rich playboy, self-entitled attitude.

The whole thing with Tom evading capture was also a big suspension of belief. They seem to want to put everybody's picture in the papers relating to the murder of Freddie Miles, apart from the person most closely connected to it, who has also gone missing. I mean really? It would have foiled Tom's plans immediately if they had. Then dressing up differently to the inspector to pretend to be someone else, while acting the same, talking the same, and still looking a bit the same, and getting away with it. OK.

Great cinematography and production values but the writing and storytelling a bit hit and miss.

reply

[–] moviebuff00 (452) 14 days ago

i wrote that before i finished the show. i agree with everything you said. the plot holes really killed my enjoyment of the show. in the movie, the story was highly rational and the jams he gets himself in are seemingly impossible to get out of but he always does. in the show, the solutions don't even make sense so there is no enjoyment from cleverness there. the fact that they cast freddie as a transsexual makes no sense because dickie was homophobic. while it's possible he is a latent homosexual or is knowingly hiding it, he wouldn't be friends with a transsexual. also phillip seymour hoffman was so much more menacing and annoying as freddie. the show fails in so many ways that it makes me wonder how the showrunner even got the job. it's like did they even understand what made the movie good?

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6424) 11 days ago

Agreed completely, and above all, they don't even understand what made the books good.

reply

[–] spurtle467 (1518) 7 days ago

I don't think the character is supposed to be transexual in the series, at least I don't remember that being referenced anywhere. I think they just expected you to believe that this obviously female born actor, is an adult male character. Of course it wasn't very convincing as it looked like a woman or young boy pretending to be a guy. It did hint at him being homosexual though with the mention of him staying in Naples with Max.

reply

[–] moviebuff00 (452) 7 days ago

i know he's not suppose to be transsexual. the point is, he looks it. if they wanted us to believe it was a man, that's the most insanely woke shit imaginable. trying to force fed us some agenda like that.

if they wanted us to think that was suppose to be an obviously gay man then that could work with the casting choice, but that doesnt make sense in the story neither because dickie wouldnt be seen with such a person. he was talking shit about gay guys at the beach.

reply

[–] Bartholomew (22) 10 days ago

Why would the infatuated Tom of the movie hit Dickie with the oar at all? That really came out of nowhere. And upon seeing the blood and initially wanting to treat the wound, he then beats him to death?? In the series and the book, Tom was mostly motivated by envy of the opulent life of leisure he was leeching and about to lose, leaving him to choose between killing Dickie or returning to his miserable life in New York.

The series brought in the Caravaggio theme (hopefully to set up Tom's growing interest in painting, art collection and forgery for future adaptations of the following books), and I guess they wanted to use the lighting effect as the main basis for fooling the inspector. Perhaps they should have had him change his appearance more as well. As it was, he was extremely lucky, but luck also played a big part in Tom's escape in the book.

As for photos, Freddie was a flashy extrovert who likely attended all kinds of gala events. Dickie was far more reserved and lived a quiet life in an out-of-the-way village. There may just not have been any photos of him available, other than Marge's, and she was negotiating with Oggi, not the daily newspapers.

reply

[–] spurtle467 (1518) 7 days ago

Because Dickie was breaking off their friendship. Tom was clearly upset about it and snapped when Dickie started taunting him. It didn't really come out of nowhere, at least not in the sense that it wasn't believable. He then subdued him by striking him with the oar to stop Dickie from killing him. The series had Dickie tell Tom he should spend more time by himself in a friendly way and Tom then suddenly kills him. That was less believable. If they wanted the intention to be that Tom offed him because he was jealous of the opulent lifestyle and didn't really care for Dickie, they could have played it up more. It seemed to me like Tom liked being around Dickie enough that that wouldn't have been his first thought. Dickie was so passive as well, he even asked Tom to help him while Tom was beating him to death. It made me laugh.

I thought they should have made more effort to have Tom look and sound different when he was interviewed by the inspector, pretending to be himself. He just sounded and acted the same way he does when pretending to be Dickie. I haven't read the books but isn't he supposed to be quite good at that sort of thing? At least make it more realistic that the inspector, who seemed pretty clued up, would fall for it. Instead he may as well have been interviewed by Inspector Clouseau at that moment.

As for the photo thing, the whole scenario just seemed so implausible. They even have a very vague, blurry picture of Dickie from the back in the newspaper. How do they not have a good picture of him by that stage from the front? It doesn't add up.

reply

[–] moviebuff00 (452) 7 days ago

i feel like there must've been some bullshit woke/nepotistic hirings on this project. the script is sooooooooo stupid that any asshole could've made it better. the scenarios were so implausible that anyone who isnt with a modicum of talent should've seen it. how could that last scene with the inspector even make sense? who could think that could fool anyone never mind someone who is suppose to be a suspicious investigator? you could argue other scenes but that one is indefensible. when i saw that he had to meet the inspector i was so excited thinking they had some super clever ploy for him to get out of it somehow. turns out he did meet him and puts on a disguise. come the fuck on.

reply

[–] Bartholomew (22) 6 days ago

The series did a lot set up the murder. Tom is obviously fixated on Dickie's wealth, staring at his ring, counting along as a bank clerk doles out Dickie's cash, and opening his bank statement. To drive home the point, as Tom snoops through Dickie's things, he listens to a language tape that goes "How much money do you need? It's not enough... Whose is this? ... It's his. It's mine."

Only a couple hours after meeting Dickie for the first time, Tom is already in his hotel room practicing being him. Later, he dresses in Dickie's clothes and again practices being him. He also compares Dickie's passport photo to his own face in the mirror.

When Herbert fires him, Tom tries to prevent Dickie from seeing his father's letter, and then eavesdrops to find out the letter's contents. As he eavesdrops, Tom considers various methods of murder. The twist is that in his mind the situation is reversed, with Dickie planning to kill him. It was as if he was trying to justify or prepare himself for killing Dickie − "he deserves it because he would do the same to me". And figuratively, he thinks of himself as Dickie and wants to get rid of the old Tom.

We already know by then that Tom is a criminal and a sociopath. Dickie wanted to know what was in the suitcase from Carlo − stolen art (some rich guy loses a small part of his wealth) versus drugs or guns (a high likelihood of harm or death). Tom by contrast just didn't care.

In the movie, Tom is portrayed as a milquetoast loser who would be expected to beg and grovel, not resort to violence. He is never shown losing control of his emotions, lashing out in anger, being prone to violence, or having any real criminal tendencies, until suddenly he is.

The papers had only the one crappy photo because Tom spotted the reporter following him. He changed hotels and was able to avoid the press until leaving Palermo two days later. The press weren't on him before that because he was just a witness, not a suspect. He left Rome as soon as possible and they didn't have much reason to hunt him down until the boat was found.

reply