In late 1950s New York, Tom Ripley, a young underachiever, is sent to Italy to retrieve Dickie Greenleaf, a rich and spoiled millionaire playboy. But when the errand fails, Ripley takes extreme measures.
The 1950s. Manhattan lavatory attendant, Tom Ripley, borrows a Princeton jacket to play piano at a garden party. When the wealthy father of a recent Princeton grad chats Tom up, Tom pretends to know the son and is soon offered $1,000 to go to Italy to convince Dickie Greenleaf to return home. In Italy, Tom attaches himself to Dickie and to Marge, Dickie's cultured fiancée, pretending to love jazz and harboring homoerotic hopes as he soaks in luxury. Besides lying, Tom's talents include impressions and forgery, so when the handsome and confident Dickie tires of Tom, dismissing him as a bore, Tom goes to extreme lengths to make Greenleaf's privileges his own.Written by
In the novel, reference is made to Dickie being portrayed as a "combination of Paul Gaugin and Errol Flynn." Jude Law who played Dickie Greenleaf in the film would also make a cameo appearance as Errol Flynn in The Aviator (2004). See more »
When Tom Ripley is trying to learn to identify jazz musicians from recordings, he's listening to Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie's "Ko Ko", and he "recognizes" Parker's playing during Gillespie's break. See more »
If I could just go back... if I could rub everything out... starting with myself.
See more »
The opening title uses all the adjectives of the complete title before cutting to the final "The Talented Mr. Ripley". See more »
First of all, I saw this movie twice, which is a rarety in itself these days. The actors did what all actors should do in a successful motion picture, or stage play, and that is submit their own egos to the needs of the production. Matt Damon especially surprised me with his total devotion to the part of Ripley. Jude Law, once again, proved his talents as an actor by becoming Dickie Greenleaf. Paltrow and Blanchett also totally believed in whom they were playing and brought that to the screen. While I have been told that the movie is different than the book, I applaud Mingella for his tight script and seamless direction. Yet again, we are given a prime example that when violence grows out of a strong plot we, as an audience, accept it. There was not wasted motion or emotion in this film and I cannot say enough good things about it. I am surprised that the Academy so overlooked this film. Go see it.
71 of 92 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this