|
Post by MagdaFR on Apr 22, 2024 14:36:57 GMT
But yeah, he is just too old for Ripley! I haven’t watched it so maybe I shouldn’t say it but what’s doing a 40 something almost 50 years old guy partying with kids in Italy and not being suspicious? Although, considering Dickie is apparently also very old, too but then, why is the rich father treating his son like a kid?; how is that he is so naive letting Ripley enter his life?. At that age, old men living like that are probably more pathetic than sexy and, well, supposedly that’s one of the issues with the adaptation. An old Dickie partying all the time in Europe alongside rich kids/other old people behaving like kids and dreaming with being artists should probably have much more pathos than what was it is in the novel. For starters, their lives wouldn’t be so attractive or enviable ! Maybe for a Ripley wanting their money and only their money (why would he want Dickie identity?) but probably not for the audiences! So, I don’t know, it would be more difficult to identify yourself with Ripley and understand what he is doing. They don't party, except if you call partying having a capuccino in the piazza or going to dine out at a restaurant or visit a museum or church. They're not interesting. They're boring. Once, Dickie forgets he was going to meet Marge for dinner because he was chatting with Tom but, they never show what they were talking about. And they can't do that because Tom, except from his forgeries, frauds, and his existence as a petty conman (of which he doesn't talk), has no other talents or characteristics or personal interests, at least that they show to us. You know nothing about him. Dickie and Tom have no interests in common, it's difficult to believe they have anything so absorbing to talk about that they lose track of time. Dickie, even when Flynn is handsome, has no sex appeal. It is funny because Tom says once or twice that he's interested in girls or something of the kind and it is so unnecessary (and artificial) because there is no chemistry between them. They are two middle aged men and they act like that but they're called "two young men" by some detective not much older than them or a hotel employee who looks may be younger, it's comical. And, yes, it makes no sense, at that age, the father sending anyone to bring his son back. The photography is really awesome, though. And also the settings.
I finished it and the pace gets better or I was less tired or more inclined to watch. I need time to process the whole series and perhaps I should watch it again.
In the meantime, I started watching Jude Law's version (sorry, Matt Damon). And, the difference about their motivations is big. First Dickie is living the time of his life, is angry with his father for interfering, so he laughs at Tom's impressions of him and it's natural his suggestion of using his father's money and make the most of the situation to their benefit. So inviting Tom to stay with him looks natural. And, in this version Dickie and Tom bond over jazz, you watch them having fun together.
Also, Damon's Tom has some talents, does impressions, plays the piano, you see how he's been around rich people and can mingle with them.
This is one thing that is missing in Ripley. There are no good reasons to invite Tom to stay with Dickie. Ripley isn't specially charming or amusing or talented to interest Dickie or Marge who are, mostly Dickie, artsy types.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Apr 22, 2024 14:56:03 GMT
I think Dickie’s father explains that he expects Dickie to come home and take over the family business. Or something. I think Dickie’s life in Italy is totally enviable! Who wouldn’t want that life - a hilltop villa in Italy, making (awful) art?
I think Dickie’s motivation in inviting Tom to stay with him is that he enjoys showing off and having someone impressed with him and his lifestyle. He likes throwing his money around while understanding that Tom is not wealthy and only accepted his father’s job offer for the money.
If people watch this as a remake of the movie, then no - it doesn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Apr 22, 2024 18:35:02 GMT
I think Dickie’s father explains that he expects Dickie to come home and take over the family business. Or something. I think Dickie’s life in Italy is totally enviable! Who wouldn’t want that life - a hilltop villa in Italy, making (awful) art? I think Dickie’s motivation in inviting Tom to stay with him is that he enjoys showing off and having someone impressed with him and his lifestyle. He likes throwing his money around while understanding that Tom is not wealthy and only accepted his father’s job offer for the money. If people watch this as a remake of the movie, then no - it doesn’t work.It's not my case. I watched the first 35 min of the movie for comparison and after having written about the lack of chemistry between Tom and Dickie and not seeing a reason to invite Tom to stay.
However, having lived in another country for some years, I have to say that, not being rich, I welcomed many people from here that I vaguely knew or were a friend of a friend, just because they were from my country. So I can see Dickie inviting Tom for some days. But, if a person stays for a longer time I think that then you'd start at least questionning their intentions and it would be a very red flag if you catch them using your clothes and mimicking you.
One of the reasons I'd watch the series again is because I didn't paid attention to the time passed on each episode or from one episode to the following one.
I'd totally embrace the dolce far niente.
|
|
|
Post by jbc12 on Apr 27, 2024 11:05:52 GMT
Unpopular opinion here but I’m not a great fan of Andrew Scott. He was great as Moriarty but I’ve never really liked him in anything else. I happen to agree with you on this. Mine's a very unpopular opinion because I feel this way about Andrew Scott, Martin Freeman, Olivia Coleman and Billie Piper. They all seem to just play themselves in everything. <sorry to any fans>
|
|
|
Post by jbc12 on Apr 27, 2024 11:26:36 GMT
If you’re not a fan, you probably haven’t seen this. But give it a try if you have time! Watching it now, thanks for sharing. From the first few mins, I've just realized that he's left handed. How did I not notice that before?
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Apr 27, 2024 12:25:43 GMT
I don’t think we ever saw him write anything in Sherlock, so I didn’t know he was left-handed either. I only noticed it in Ripley, where he signs his name a million times, always with his left hand.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Apr 29, 2024 0:24:00 GMT
Just started watching Ridley today.
First impressions -
*Really like the moody, B/W photography.
*The casting leaves much to be desired. My complaint is the same as many others... too old and that definitely affects the motivation of the characters.
*No exciting chemistry between any characters
*Oh boy! Is this thing slow! And I like slowly developed movies and TV series. But if this thing was any slower it would be in a morgue.
On to Episode 3!
EDIT: just watched Episode 3 and it definitely was the best of the three we saw. At least something happened! I loved the sound! That boat, with it creaking and groaning, was the most menacing thing in the episode! In fact it was far more creepy that Ridley himself.
I find AS's performance a bit inconsistent. Sometimes I think he is emoting so much just with his eyes. And then there are a number of time he seems so distant that he seems disinterested in his character.
|
|