Alicia I love this movie so much

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Radish4ever I watched this film having never seen any of the Ripley films or read any of the books, from a recommendation from a friend. From the first scene to the last I was riveted to the movie. Basically Tom Ripley (played superbly by John Malkovich) is a sociopath, a charming evil man without a conscience who can con, steal, murder and manipulate his way through life with ease for his own personal gain. During the process he has gone from nothing to being extremely wealthy and living in a mansion in a lush Venetian villa in Italy. He decides to play a deadly game with a neighbour. Jonathon Trevany, who insults him at a party. He finds out Jonathan has a few months to live as he has a terminal illness and arranges for him to do a assassination for a ex-business associate Reeves (Ray Winston) for a large amount of money that will set his family up for life. After manipulating events, it becomes clear that Reeves wants revenge on Ripley and blows the situation bigger. After murdering the target successfully and thinking that is it, Reeves wants Jonathan to kill the victims Russian co-workers using a garrote to strangle them. Completely out of hand and in an impossible situation. At the beginning of the movie we see Ripley rip off virtually everyone in a business deal involving forged artwork, in which Reeves had set up the deal in the first place, so we know why this is more than it seems. Ripley becomes friends with Jonathan in the meantime and appears to find a conscience and intervenes to sort out the huge situation he originally helped create. Jonathon is, after all an innocent picture framer who is totally out of his depth. Needless to say murder and mayhem follow once out main man comes onto the scene. All in a days work for Tom Ripley.The Film is fantastic, always moving at a fast pace and the cast of Winston, Malkovich and Dougray Scott all seem to enjoy their roles. There are several other Ripley films, Ripley underground was made after Ripley's Game in 2005 and is unreleased in the UK but available in some countries. Earlier Ripley films are Plein soleil (1960 France), American Friend (Made in 1977 and is actually from the book Ripley's game, an earlier version with Dennis Hopper as Tom Ripley) & the talented Mr Ripley (1999) Recommended 9 out of 10.

Aristides-2 The Netflix DVD projected a story that was virtually ludicrous at times, sloppily directed and relied on the most hackneyed of hack 'writing'; coincidences happening at crucial moments. A maximum of 1,000 words (plus my own valuable time) will necessitate a less lengthy critique of this heavily flawed film. 1. Since the art dealer at the start of the film accepts Riley's comment that the 'forgery' will still be sold by the dealer for x amount of dollars then why any artifice at all. The two parties are colluding on a scam. 2. After Riley leaves the dealer's place he gives Reeves their entire profit of $400,000. Why does he do that? To sever their collaboration! Story suggestion: Why not take the $200 grand and then tell him you're not doing business with him anymore. 3. Ripley, owning a magnificent palace? His scams must be extraordinarily successful to afford that lifestyle (and with only one servant, a cook, to look after the place? How about a staff of 15?) 4. In an awkwardly staged gotcha scene Jonathan goes on and on as he puts down Ripley. Not one person in a presumed group of friends alerts him to his gaffe? But more interesting is what Jonathan is griping about.....Ripley's lack of taste! Was the writer smoking crack? Having a classic bourgeois talking about the 'taste' of a man who plays classical music on the harpsichord, loves art, loves good food, loves a good looking classical musician who is crazy about him? Errrrrh, who is the tasteless person here? 5. Reeves somehow traces and finds the almost compulsively thoughtful, careful, thorough plan-making Ripley and gets him to accept a preposterous story about how he can't murder a rival because suspicion will be attached to him. That particular crowd of Berlin criminals is a large one, probably known to the police and Reeves isn't clever enough to create an alibi and hire some goon to get it done? He wants Ripley to do it. Why should Ripley accommodate him? Given R.'s m.o. he would kill Reeves to get rid of him. But then the pseudo-sociopathic (I'll get back to this later) Ripley, stung beyond belief by having been put down publicly at the party by J., finds out somehow that J. is terminally ill and 'needs the money' and passes his name on to Reeves as someone who could be manipulated into becoming a hit man. What?! J. looks like a sick man (though he seems not to have any physical impairments as the movie goes on) and though his work place in Milan is spacious and looks like it's successful, it doesn't enter his mind to move to a humbler more affordable rental. And speaking of his finances, though his home is not palatial it's quite grand. How about moving to a smaller place and, by the way, stop throwing expensive parties. The comments about J. in this section are small potatoes compared to my main thought: I could never for a moment accept that the personality created on the screen was someone who would make the leap from being a decent husband and father into a hit man murderer. 6. Ripley is not a true sociopath but a pseudo-sociopath because he suddenly develops a conscience and/or 'feelings' about Jonathan. Sociopaths don't pack the gear for this kind of behavior. (Suddenly it's a black humor buddy movie?) 7. I'm starting to tire over this review since there's so much more to say. I'll end therefore with one example of a director's (or script supervisor's) sloppiness: Reeves, with 3 or 4 hit man in the same locale after him, goes into a rage when Ripley cuts him loose. Reeves starts shaking the bars of the gate outside of the property's entrance. Fit to kill, he can't figure out a way of accessing the property. But moments later Jonathan somehow does and rides his bicycle to the palace. Then, later still, J.'s wife drives up to the house, somehow getting the gates to open and close behind her. Then for the unbelievable coincidences: Here's but one. The hit men after Ripley are clever enough to breech the gate and in daylight are spotted approaching the building. This occurs because Ripley 'happens' to be looking out the right window and can see them. Later, as J. is about to get his brains blown out Ripley just again (what luck the man has!) is at the right door at the right time to prevent this from happening and shoots the hit man. I'll conclude now. I understand that the original director walked off the project early on and that John Malkovitch took over directing. This explains much of what went wrong. And finally, it's almost always rotten pictures that go straight to DVD because the producers believe they have a bomb on their hands.....and that's why Ripley's Game suffered that fate.

maaaaarcus I'm amazed how many people on IMDb gave this film such good reviews. It completely lost me in the first scene where Tom Ripley is making the bogus deal with another dodgy art dealer and kills his bodyguard in very unconvincing form. Everything from how the film looks (choice of film stock) to the boring cinematography, choreography, hammy performances, and writing tells me I'm in for ... well, a bad film. And that's exactly what it is, folks!! Where this movie really lost me is when I discover Tom Ripley talking on a cell phone. Okay. That must mean it is set around the time the movie was made (early 2000's). If this is the same character as the Matt Damon one from The Talented Mr. Ripley which was set in the 1950's, that would make Tom Ripley in his 60's, at least!! I'm sorry, but Malcovich does not look like he's in his 60's. (Even though Malcovich has been sporting the old man haircut probably since he was three, this just doesn't cut it) And my apologies for my lack of knowledge on this Ripley character because I have never read the series, but isn't he supposed to be gay? That was certainly what The Talented Mr Ripley suggested. What I assume is that he's bi-sexual and that many years later he's decided to shack up with a much younger Italian woman who loves it from behind ... Pathetic!

artisticengineer The talented Mr. Ripley is in retirement in Europre; his last job that he carried out before retirement is shown early in the movie when the very elegant, suave, etc. Mr. Ripley turns and commits a very foul crime that shows his inner ruthlessness. The purpose of this scene is to introduce his cohort in crime as well as remind the viewer what sort of man Mr. Ripley is and the people he deals with.Years past and Ripley is seemingly absorbed into proper society; though there are rumors about his past. Nonetheless life seems to be going well for Mr. Ripley; living in a fashionable Italian villa as well as being in love with a world class musician. Then, his former associate in crime arrives unexpectedly at the villa. As unwelcome as this associate is Ripley does not throw him out immediately; that would be too rude even in private life. The visit is, unfortunately, not a personal one. Rather, it is business. The associate has some problems in Berlin with the new Russian crime bosses. He needs to find somebody who will take out one of these bottom dwellers. Does Ripley know a good hit man for the job? Ripley mulls it over and determines that the best hit man for a job like this would be somebody who has never done this sort of stuff before. Can an innocent man be persuaded to do this? This is not an easy question in the movies or in real life. In any civilized society murder is condemned harshly. Even if the victim of a murder is a low life him/herself the crime is treated as murder. Are there any circumstances where killing is allowed? Yes, there are some killings allowed such as on a battlefield during war. But, that is state sanctioned. Shooting somebody in a mob type killing is hardly allowed- or is it?? Can it be justified? But, even if a "suitable" victim is found does that give anybody the right to shoot them?? And, even if the person is deemed "suitable" for elimination by some standard- will the killing end with this individual or will there be retaliation? And, if there is, who can one call for help?? Does the end justify the means? This movie asks the question of whether a non-criminal can be induced to commit murder. It also asks other questions; some of them quite disturbing to even contemplate. In a way it is a continuation of movies that go back to "The Man who Shot Liberty Valence"; movies that question what ordinary people can do in extraordinary circumstances.Realistically I doubt that a man such as Tom Ripley even exists. He seems as improbable as James Bond. Yet, James Bond was (supposedly) modeled on some real life individuals. Such a man as Tom Ripley may actually be out there. If so, he (or they) will probably resemble the character John Malkovich portrays. It is a very good portrayal of a very complex person.