How great is this movie? I just re-watched it for the first time in eight or nine years and I was even more blown away than I was when I first saw it.
I'm calling Masterpiece. Everything about it is just amazing.
SPOILERS.
Real Dickie Greenleaf is such a pompous privileged ass. You can't help but be happy when he meets his brutal demise.
Matt Damon is so good in this. So is everyone. It's just a really great film in all facets. It's so beautiful and creepy.
It's a shame Minghella is dead. I'm coming around to the fact that he was underrated.
oh total masterpiece. i've always thought of it as mrs. doubtfire with murder. in the greatest possible way.
weird, I just saw it today again, although i've seen it a good six or seven times in the ten years since it first came out. probably more times. hands down minghella's best movie and damon's best performance (probably law's too). it is an astonishingly beautiful film to experience, a virtuoso directing work from frame one. I don't think it misses one single chance to show how cool it is. The film got lost in between a lot of other fantastic movies in 1999, but at least is another masterpiece from that strange year.
Always remembered it as a great film too, it's strange because I've never heard that much praise for it before so I often forget about it.
Thought I was alone in this. I just checked out the imdb rating and it's 7.2 ... this weekend I was talking to a friend about our high school film watching enthusiasm and we would always pick out something from IMDB's top 250, rent it and check it off the list of those we've seen. We were, without saying it, both believing that once we would've seen these 250 movies we would've seen every really good movies that exist, and more because we figured the last 50 or so would probably suck. We talked about this and the fact that somehow since a couple of years all the best films we are seeing are rated like 7.2 ... whatever just some digression I wanted to make.
About the film though, I remember when I saw it, some sunday morning when I must have been 15, I didn't understand the story or the ending at all. But I still have clear images of the whole italian setting, Jude Law's little bike, stuff like that. I should rent it again.
I remember liking the sequel too, but my memory is a lot less vivid (Ripley's game with Malkovich I mean, not really a sequel but whatever)
Loved it. One of the first DVDs I ever bought when the players were first getting popular.
Read the book too.
Haven't seen it in a few years... thanks for this reminder... going to watch it again soon.
Quote from: Pas Rap on February 08, 2010, 07:24:30 AM
I remember liking the sequel too, but my memory is a lot less vivid (Ripley's game with Malkovich I mean, not really a sequel but whatever)
Malkovich was the perfect Ripley in Ripley's Game. It deserved a wider release, because its a fantastic film as well.
I've been doing a bit of movie rewatching myself, but this is one I'll definitely add. Haven't seen it since high school, but loved it then. Can't wait to see what I consider Matt Damon's greatest performance, and another great one by PSH. I'll sit down with this maybe tomorrow or over the weekend.
As great as this movie is, and it truly is great, I still have to recommend Purple Noon and Alian Delon's performance of Ripley. A more Hitchcockian take on the story.
Quote from: MacGuffin on February 14, 2010, 01:45:34 AM
As great as this movie is, and it truly is great, I still have to recommend Purple Noon and Alian Delon's performance of Ripley. A more Hitchcockian take on the story.
It's funny you should say that, because as I was watching The Talented Mr. Ripley, I really did feel Hitchcock's influence on the film. The music more than anything but really the performances -- Gwyneth Paltrow's stone-faced disdain for Ripley and Cate Blanchett's timelessness especially -- really make the film feel like Hitchcock with upfront and explored homosexuality. Jude Law is absolutely perfect, and Matt Damon, I think, reached his peak with this role, playing someone so splintered and torn and uncomfortable with an ease one would think unfathomable after seeing his Bourne films. Minghella, and with Murch editing, creates the film with perfect precision and has some amazing and inventive shots (like Ripley "splitting" into two with his reflection in the piano). This is absolutely an overlooked masterpiece.
I have to go back to an old role and dissent. It's not a very good film. While the execution of the story (as is) is fine, actors are all fine, and the film is accurately filled with all the Hitchcock references and subthemes, the plot is too convoluted and lengthy for its own good. It takes a basic Hitchcockian story and the only update is a denser and longer story with more references to all the normal Hitchcock markers. When Hitchcock was at his best, it was when he was able to pare down a story to its essence and extract all of his intended themes out of it. Because Hitchcock structured himself in the thriller genre, a shorter story worked to his advantage because a typical story for Hitchcock was best when housed in a 80-90 minute story. The Talented Mr. Ripley is 20 minutes over two hours. The only thing the extra length does is make the film get repetitive with the standard references and themes.
When the film was originally released, I remember Roger Ebert made a comment about how Hitchcock could have adapted the original novel because it was written in the 1950s. Since it was written during Hitchcock's time, it also had a story that was as interesting (or not interesting) as most of Hitchcock's thriller stories. The subject matter not does not go beyond any Hitchcock story, but it's dedication to an archaic time period makes it specifically suited to something Hitchcock himself should have filmed in his own time. Making it 40 years later in pure homage style is a bore because Brian De Palma and Todd Haynes have found ways to post-modernize Hitchcock and add on to his style and characterization with greater length and substance without feeling the need to retroactively go back.
Like I said, The Talent Mr. Ripley is fine in many ways, but once you get used to the norms of a Hitchcock film being made in the 90s, the film just languishes itself over a typical story that wasn't being made in robust fashion like it was in the 40s or 50s.
it's really not that standard of a hitchcock film. for one, it fully empathizes with mr. ripley, while indulging in remorseless. hitchcock's easy plot always gives his characters a way out, or to their deaths, but mr. ripley is mired in his own desires and the complications that ensue. actually, in that way, it's not very similar to a hitchcock film. they share the same setting, but the Talented Mr. Ripley really has no interest in delivering a thriller, it's much more interested in seeing a boy, "gifted" with remorseless, snowballing his sins to the point of no return. the comparison to Hitchcock is only superficial.
It only emphasizes with him to a point. It gives him more screen time and shows him dealing with embarassments, but it does not make him a full fledged character. The minor trifles he deals with in the film do not explain how he became a psychotic killer. They just explain how he was able to crack under a new situation with new people. Psycho also does this, but it does it retroactively after the murder. Beforehand, we're given Norman Bates vantage point in admiring and fondling over Janet Leigh, but more time is spent after the murder in Bates trying to cover up the murder and protect the cloistered life he leads from investigators. Those moments are details to Bates' character. One could argue that Damon's Ripley is given more time and yes he is because of the film's screentime, but the only psychology about him that is learned has to do with his behavior. The same could be said with Bates.
This conversation is why I love xixax.
but what was interesting about ripley wasn't the cause of his upbringing, and it wasn't even a mystery in Ripley, which would've suffered if he was worshiping his mother's bones. The fun or the meat or the whatever you call it of the film doesn't lie in the mystery or the explanation - it lies in the detailed progression of an insecure young man who feels like he must sin his way through life, and gets pretty good at it. It's not about psychology, but the thrill of being there with him. and the difference between him and the other movie anti-heroes or heroes is that he doesn't seem to have a clear, visual goal. He just follows his instinct, which happens to be evil, and compels him to commit acts he knows are wrong but feels entitled to at the same time. all of this might be buried in psycho, and psycho is a great film, one that people can't knock, but Ripley is interested in things Psycho buries.
My Hitchcock reference was to Purple Noon, where Ripley is examined like Norman Bates. And the homosexuality is more subtle; Delon's Ripley is more bisexual.
Quote from: MacGuffin on February 15, 2010, 08:05:31 PM
My Hitchcock reference was to Purple Noon, where Ripley is examined like Norman Bates. And the homosexuality is more subtle; Delon's Ripley is more bisexual.
Right, I just found it funny to describe that film as a Hitchcockian take on Ripley, when Minghella's film seems to be as well, in a lot of ways. I'll definitely check out that film.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on February 15, 2010, 07:20:34 PM
It only emphasizes with him to a point. It gives him more screen time and shows him dealing with embarassments, but it does not make him a full fledged character. The minor trifles he deals with in the film do not explain how he became a psychotic killer. They just explain how he was able to crack under a new situation with new people. Psycho also does this, but it does it retroactively after the murder. Beforehand, we're given Norman Bates vantage point in admiring and fondling over Janet Leigh, but more time is spent after the murder in Bates trying to cover up the murder and protect the cloistered life he leads from investigators. Those moments are details to Bates' character. One could argue that Damon's Ripley is given more time and yes he is because of the film's screentime, but the only psychology about him that is learned has to do with his behavior. The same could be said with Bates.
But the thing that's great about the film is that there's no time to explain. Ripley sets off a chain of events and literally improvises from one moment to the next. It's about him nearly getting caught over and over again and his psychology comes through these actions -- the ease with which he manipulates people, his deftness at lying, understanding his place in his 'game' and how to take advantage of situations. These traits could be useful, but he uses them for villainous intentions. A key moment in Ripley's psychology is when the police are in his apartment, and he hears that Marge is there. At first he says, "Just let her in" because he gives up momentarily -- the one time it happens in the movie. But then! He realizes he shouldn't, he changes his play, and keeps the game going. That's what defines him, his inability to admit the truth (which is locked up in that basement he talks about) and to stop lying.
His psychology also lies in his actions by the fact that he impersonates Dickie in the first place. He says "I thought I'd rather like being a fake somebody than a real nobody" because he's so insecure with who is and where he's from that he has to siphon the identity of someone he sees as having a more valuable life. The psychology is woven deeply into the film, so there's no need for an expository scene at the end with the police (although there is a deftly written scene with psychological exposition at the end by his boyfriend) like in Psycho. I think you're mischaracterizing the film, all of his actions and choices reveal what motivates him to be a killer. It's nothing like being completely nuts or being molested as a kid or having a genetic defect. He says in the film "Do you think people ever consider themselves bad people?" His point is that people normalize their behavior, no matter how bad it is, and these small steps and decisions he has made, even though they are small, have added up to these tragic scenarios of murder, deception, fraud, etc. The film, to me, comes off as having beautifully layered the complexities of Ripley's character (and all the characters) and the plot into something really fascinating to watch unfold.
the companion film to this one is The King, more than anything else I've seen.
Quote from: pete on February 15, 2010, 07:43:52 PM
but what was interesting about ripley wasn't the cause of his upbringing, and it wasn't even a mystery in Ripley, which would've suffered if he was worshiping his mother's bones. The fun or the meat or the whatever you call it of the film doesn't lie in the mystery or the explanation - it lies in the detailed progression of an insecure young man who feels like he must sin his way through life, and gets pretty good at it. It's not about psychology, but the thrill of being there with him. and the difference between him and the other movie anti-heroes or heroes is that he doesn't seem to have a clear, visual goal. He just follows his instinct, which happens to be evil, and compels him to commit acts he knows are wrong but feels entitled to at the same time. all of this might be buried in psycho, and psycho is a great film, one that people can't knock, but Ripley is interested in things Psycho buries.
I don't even like Psycho, but what you call buried I call a decent subtextual element. Psycho forces you to really dig into the story and examine parts of it where I think The Talented Mr. Ripley leaves everything on the surface level. In a way, giving Ripley's character that much context and dissection takes away from the intrigue of seeing him as an elemental figure of mystery who escapes understanding and logic in many ways. You don't understand Ripley's character history by the end, but you do understand every nut and bolt of his thinking. I had little wonderment about his character because I didn't think much more could have been said about a one dimensional character than what wasn't said in the film. It's like the Joker in Dark Knight. He's a wonderful character and you want him to be in the film more often, but really, you don't. A full dissection of the Joker in Dark Knight wouldn't have been able explain how he became the Joker, but it would removed elements of mystery to how he was a criminal. The important element is how he affects people around him. I think the same is with Ripley, but it's not done in this film.
Norman Bates intrigues us on enough of a personal level, but the wonderment about him is longer lasting because the less attention that is paid to him, the more the audience wonders about big leaps of logic like how he can mascarade as his mother and kill the way he does. But more importantly, I think you need to leave these characters behind screen doors more because they aren't real characters. Their methods and methodologies is all that they have as far as characterization goes. The normal route in these suspenseful stories is how these characters effect other people. Gamblour's reply also details the intricacies of Ripley's cunning and I understand that, but I didn't get much of an enjoyment out of knowing that much about Ripley. It's enjoyable viewing the first time but it's empty and vacuous afterwards. Well, it has been with me and Talented Mr. Ripley. I hated that the book on Mr. Ripley felt written with that film.
Besides, the more attention paid to Ripley didn't reveal any new themes that haven't been discussed or examined in other Hitchcock works. People like the change of focus and I understand, but these one dimensional characters just don't work for me when put on the stage by themselves.
Well I enjoyed the first time but it was in the consequent viewings that I REALLY felt it was awesome.
Also, any Hitchcock similarity is only superficial, mostly in style, the use of color and camera movements and setups. But you could say in general it feels like an old classic hollywood movie.
Hitchcock would have done this much differently though. He had already adapted Strangers on a Train (another Patricia Highsmith novel) and had to pull back on the homosexual elements (and more-so in the American release). Ripley isn't necessarily gay either... he's sexually ambiguous (which is explored a little differently in the interesting, but more-boring "Purple Noon"). A side that I see as important and already going against what GT is saying about everything being obvious and on the surface.
I never made it through Ripley's Game, though I would like to give it another try. Has anyone seen The American Friend? I've got it in my Netflix Queue, but it's pretty low.
Quote from: RegularKarate on February 16, 2010, 11:41:00 AM
he's sexually ambiguous (which is explored a little differently in the interesting, but more-boring "Purple Noon"). A side that I see as important and already going against what GT is saying about everything being obvious and on the surface.
Even an ambiguity can be obvious if it's nature of being an ambiguity is heavily doted on. A film can be boring when the questions it's trying to ask come off as too obvious to be interesting. Ripley's one dimensional character will always keep him from three dimensional certitudes, but the film needs to try to make the questions about him a little difficult to ponder.
you know, saying hitchcock's already made talented ripley is a lot like saying sergio leone's already made brokeback mountain.
Quote from: pete on February 17, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
you know, saying hitchcock's already made talented ripley is a lot like saying sergio leone's already made brokeback mountain.
That's an easy, "No."