By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Tom Ripley is one of literature’s great con men, and Andrew Scott is a perfect choice to play him. The Fleabag and Sherlock actor is charming and has a sophisticated air… and yet there’s something a little off about him. (Even when he played a priest in Fleabag, he had a mischievous glint in his eye.) He slips effortlessly into the title role in Netflix’s Ripley — all eight episodes are now streaming; I’ve seen the first four — and the lush black-and-white cinematography is a joy to behold. The series is badly hampered by an overly deliberate pace, though, and being trapped inside Ripley’s twisted mind starts to feel uncomfortable after a while. The end result is thick with atmosphere, but thin on story.
An adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s bestselling novels, Ripley takes us back to 1961, where Scott’s Tom Ripley is a small-time con artist, scamming medical patients with phony collection letters. He’s approached by the father of rich socialite Dickie Greenleaf (Johnny Flynn) to bring him home from Italy, where he’s living large off his trust fund money. The voyage to picturesque Italy gives Tom an intoxicating taste of the good life — Dickie is the epitome of casual wealth, with Picassos hanging on the wall — and Tom fibs his way into Dickie’s good graces. Dickie’s girlfriend Marge (Dakota Fanning) is suspicious of him, though, and as Dickie’s trust in him starts to slip, Tom reveals he’ll do anything to maintain his foothold in high society.
Shot entirely in black-and-white, Ripley is a throwback to old Hollywood filmmaking, taking its sweet time and teeming with glamour. With Oscar-winning cinematographer Robert Elswit (There Will Be Blood) behind the camera, each frame is like a beautiful photograph, rich with shadow and texture. The early episodes patiently set the mood… but perhaps too patiently. The lingering shots of the Italian coastline are nice to look at, but the pace is decidedly slow here. This story could’ve just been a two-hour movie — and it was, with 1999’s The Talented Mr. Ripley. But this is a show that lingers, and indulges, and the thrills dissipate as a result.
As Tom, Scott has an intense stare that is positively unsettling; in black and white, his eyes look ink black and beady, like a shark’s. We catch him practicing being Dickie in the mirror, like an actor rehearsing his lines, and it’s a bit hard to understand why Dickie and Marge would let a man like this into their lives. (It’s also odd that Scott, at 47 years old, is playing a young man who’s supposedly fresh out of college.) As Dickie, Flynn can’t approach the sun-kissed charisma that Jude Law had in The Talented Mr. Ripley — but to be fair, very few of us can. This is clearly a passion project for veteran screenwriter Steven Zaillian (The Night Of), who writes and directs all eight episodes himself. But it’s also sort of understandable why Showtime handed it off to Netflix after years of development, too.
With only a few characters, Ripley can’t help but feel claustrophobic, and as the story (slowly) unfolds, it only becomes more so. The tension peaks in the third episode, which doubles as a fantastic showcase for Scott. But there’s a vast moral emptiness at the center of this series that never gets filled. It all feels cold and clinical: It’s like we’re seeing the world through Tom Ripley’s eyes, where everything is literally black or white — either something he wants, or something that’s in his way, with nothing in between. In the end, Ripley does a commendable job of putting us in Tom Ripley’s shoes… but I’m not sure that’s a place we really want to be.
THE TVLINE BOTTOM LINE: Ripley boasts beautiful cinematography and a strong lead performance, but it stretches its story out so thin, it ruins the thrills.
And since Ripley is now streaming on Netflix, we want to know what you think: If you’ve watched, give the series a grade in our poll and hit the comments to share your thoughts.
Sluggish as in boring? How come 85% of shows are so boring!?!?
We are definitely not in the golden age anymore
Because people have the attention span of gnats these days
At least partly because some directors seem to equate length with quality. Every streaming show (including those with no commercials) doesn’t have to be a full hour long. And every new movie doesn’t have to be 2 hours and 20 minutes (or more). Learn your craft, learn to condense and tell the story without dragging it out.
I’m not so sure anymore to trust TVLine with reviews you guys said Palm Royale was awful and boring but yet the show is so good and addicting.
I think the problem with these streaming shows is there are too many episodes. Who needs 10 or even 8? If the stories were streamlined into at the most 5 or 6 episodes they wouldn’t seem so slow.
Some stories need to be movies. For others, it would be nice to have full seasons, where some episodes can be fillers, or breathers, and we can “hang out” with the characters for a bit.
I paid over $8000 for my “COLOR” tv and they make a B/W, that is ridiculous, i absolutely HATE B/W tv and never watch them to begin with, total crap…, make color like everyone else, duh!!!!
I paid $160,000 on a converter so that every show shot in color appears in Black and White. I demand a refund from the producers of this show for rendering my equipment superfluous!
A quarter of the show is basically a gorgeous black-and-white travelogue of the Italian coast, with endless symbolism-packed shots of cliffs, statues and stairs. If that’s what you want, fine. If you wish they would just get back to the story already, you’re bound to be find it frustrating.
The actors are too old to play 20 year olds just out of school. The first Ridley book is about this unsure, inexperienced young man and the show doesn’t reflect that. The movie staring Matt Damon has great cinematography in beautiful locations, the black and white is definitely a step down.
Factual error with the bus drive from Palermo to Salerno. Wrong side of the ocean.
The show drags so much. The actors were too old and lacks charisma, especially the Dickie actor. No one is likable and can’t see how anyone would fall madly in love with Dickie or get fooled constantly by a bumbling Tom. Fredde also sucks, nothing like the novel or the movie, they (nepo baby) can’t act either.
This show is fantastic! It was only sluggish in the first couple episodes or so and then things CHANGE. It’s fascinating watching Ripley’s psyche and his mechanations evolve. The cinematography and soundtrack are also gorgeous. It feels much earlier than the 1960s setting. This show and Andrew Scott are going to get lots of awards!
Sluggish?? We must have been watching different shows! I found Ripley to be compelling, dark, and of course beautifully filmed. Filming in black & white ( with the exception of the cat’s bloody paw prints!) was part of the reason this adaptation works. It better sets the period & old world locations and the cinematography was gorgeous. I was initially put off by an older Tom Ripley, mostly because I had the image of the fresh faced Matt Damon in my mind. But I soon changed my mind – Andrew Scott is a great actor, and the idea of an older Tom ( and Dickie) worked better. Neither one is still just a kid. Tom is very well acquainted with failure & has become resigned to scamming a living any way he can, while Dickie is rather a pathetic trust fund baby who has little talent for anything, but can afford to drift thru life in Europe, avoiding the reality of his family & the family business back in NY. Since film adaptations don’t always follow the book, I was engrossed at if & how Tom was going to pull it off. Ripley was one of the best films/series I’ve seen all year.