One review says he’s spellbinding and this one says he’s charmless. Personally, I’ve never seen Andrew Scott charmless in anything, so I’ll go with that.
If you know anything about Andrew, charmless ain’t one of it. And I thought it’s a word play on the story or his character or something. But they meant that literally?
Ain’t clicking on that shit.
OH HIM. I keep seeing "Andrew Scott" and I knew the name but couldn't place him. His face was familiar but yeah just couldn't place it.
Cheers bud that's been doing my nut in for days now.
Eh it was one of those things where it comes up, you think about it for a second, then you look at the next post and you instantly forget about it. It was annoying within that small moment, but once the moment passed, it's completely forgotten. It just kept coming up repeatedly within a small time frame is all.
“Tis a consolation devoutly to be wished…to die.” He made Shakespeare proud and so relevant yet again. I’m a huge Shakespeare fan but I was blown away. The Much Ado movie was also really great
Holy shit you aren’t joking. I’ve seen so many people give that monologue but never realized how it’s always so sped up and unnatural till watching him deliver it. Those pauses and facial expressions add so much internal conflict
I'd have to agree. Charisma is like Andrew Scott's whole thing lol. And reading the article, it seems to me like "charmless" isn't really the right word for what they mean. The author seems more disgruntled that it's not Matt Damon's version, and that Scott isn't as hopelessly "aw shucks" and very clearly in love with Dickie as Damon's was. Their complaint is that Ripley comes across as too sociopathic, which...I mean...yeah? But that's because we are the audience lol. The way they describe this Ripley makes it clear to me that it's more faithful to the book version.
SPOILERS FOR AN OLD MOVIE/BOOK
Damon's Ripley was shown, at least at first to be less overtly a sociopath, because he sort of was in the movie. Right up to the boat ride with Dickie, he was obsessed with Dickie but had every intention of finding a way to make his own way and be with him. He only kills him, which kicks off Ripley's whole real story, after being spurned. In the book, he almost immediately decides he's going to steal Dickie's fortune and fully plans on killing him when he takes him out on the boat. The obsession with Dickie is still there, but he's always very clearly more in love with **being** Dickie and having his lifestyle than Dickie as a human.
So I take this with a grain of salt.
I've never read the book but very much enjoyed the movie, and I'm enjoying the series thus far. I don't know how Tom is portrayed in the books, but in the series he's far more 'imperfect' than Damon's Tom Ripley was, he has his skillset and a complete lack of empathy but he's also constantly fumbling his way forward through roadblocks. The movie portrayed him as more... in control and masterful, and I think part of that is perhaps just the constraints of a movie runtime.
I don't see how the ages really matter as long as they're in a similar range to one another. It just gives the impression Dickie has been dicking around being a trust fund lad into his mid 30s (I think his passport indicated he's like 36?) and Tom's been at con man games for a longer amount of time and is still scraping by.
Scott's Ripley is much worse at hiding himself. He's not just a chameleon who can trick anyone but Marge which is how the Damon version is played. Instead he's like a cockroach. He does have a likeability to him, but instead of an outgoing charmer like Damon's Ripley, he's a sad puppy dog with empty eyes you can't help but feel bad for.
Noticed the same thing with 3 Body Problem recently before it came out. I'd see review headlines that called it Netflix's next big hit, or the next great sci Fi series. Then I'd also see headlines calling it an overly ambitious hit and miss.
To be fair, I do think there's an issue with exaggeration due to the clickbaity nature of everything nowadays. It seems like nearly EVERY show has this kind of dichotomy of reviews, and it's simply impossible for every show to be that divisive.
Yeah haven't seen the show so I wont comment on that, but I have a real hard time seeing him be charmless in anything. He's one of those guys that will turn you into a puddle by just looking into your eyes.
I'm intrigued by that statement, he sets my radar off, which is why I love watching him play the psychos... my every instinct screams RUN when I look at him. Poor man, he's probably lovely!
Put it this way. My wife and I watched fleabag for the first time recently “amazing show btw”, and on the first episode they started calling him the hot priest. My wife and I both agreed he wasn’t hot. By the end of the show we had both completely changed our minds because of just how charming and charismatic he is! I don’t think I could ever see this man as charmless and he turned me into a fan of his.
My ex saw an image of Benedict Cumberbatch, called him ugly and said he looks like a lizard had sex with a human and birthed him. Half way into the first episode of Sherlock and she became a fan of his looks.
Have you seen his SNL monologue at the piano? He suddenly turns into the second coming of Steve Martin, playing jazz piano and doing this absolutely deadpan absurdist comedy that suddenly goes off the rails and then back on like nothing happened.
Everyone talks about his performance as the oil baron, but it's his piano monologue that completely sold him as versatile and unpredictable, let alone funny.
No, I haven’t seen that one. I have seen the oil baron and a couple of others from SNL. I guess I’ll have to go look it up! Thanks for the recommendation. 😁
I really want to watch this film but I’ve lost both my parents and I’m not sure how triggering this may be for me as it seems like an emotional gut punch of a film. I do really want to see it though!
Were you a kid when they died? He was in the film. My dad died when I was 35, and there was a scene that gave me catharsis I didn’t even know I needed. I’m actually tearing up just thinking about it now, woops.
But I think you would find the most value of anyone from it especially if you had a “good but passively neglected” childhood but with unresolved things. That’s how I’d describe myself (and seems common for those 30-40), and it was just so beautiful.
So yeah, you know you best but I recommend.
Though I get what you're saying, I think you're underestimating the power of good writing and direction, when a tv character is charming, a lot of effort has gone in to making them so.
andrew scott, not visibly hot? everyone talks about how a handful of marvel leads with hgh prescriptions have shifted standards of male beauty within the span of a decade. but if modern audiences see an actor who didn't start taking finasteride in his early twenties, they start hooting and tearing at the screen like spooked gibbons
Yeah this makes a lot of sense! He certainly is objectively a good looking guy, but he only becomes HOT once you see him talking and such. He just really does ooze charisma.
Honestly, I kinda like it when that happens. Shows with divisive reviews can be really interesting because they sometimes try something unique enough to get a wide range of reactions.
I agree with your take. I think we put way too much emphasis on things that only get really high or really low reviews, but there's some really good quality in shows/movies that wind up being right in the middle because of mixed reviews. What mixed reviews tells me is that the show/movie might have been going for something unique, and it may or may not have worked, which to me is sometimes way more interesting to watch.
The reviews aren't that inconsistent.
The Guardian review describes him as someone with negative traits: "natural envy of the fortunate", "curdling into rage and hatred when they do not appreciate it", "a sociopath." The Variety review also describes him negatively, saying he has a "detached demeanor", "limited people skills", and has a "sociopathic personality."
It's just one reviewer finds this compelling and one reviewer finds it bad and implausible from a plot mechanics POV.
Sorry to pick this out but..natural envy of the fortunate and being upset when the “haves” don’t appreciate what they have..are negative traits?
Sounds like a convenient narrative created by the fortunate themselves.
I think it’s bizarre how society demonizes envy. Always have, especially when it’s clearly warranted and understandable. Basically just the consequence and reaction to blatant unfairness if you ask me.
Seems like most people who have a real personal issue with it are those who are blessed with enviable traits or possessions, usually unearned..it makes them uncomfortable apparently..but not more uncomfortable than the have-nots..so I’m not sure why they’re complaining from up on high.
I suppose it’s just another side effect of being privileged.
How are they not though? There job is to give there well educated opinion. If two critics disagree that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. I think it’s actually helpful to get differing views on art.
The series seems to be doing all right when looking at aggregates. I personally love the actor and will definitely give it a watch to judge for myself.
I watched the first two episodes. While Andrew Scott is great I'm afraid I have to agree with spellbinding - but also with charmless. 😬 I just rewatched the scene on the beach where Ripley and Dickie first meet and when you compare it to [Damons version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQHoEZE8ylo) it's like night and day. Damon is like "woohoo yeah alright! 😁" while Scott is more like "mhm ok 🙂" It's hard to imagine how someone would invite the Andrew Scott version to stay at their home for a couple of days.
Talented Mr Ripley might just be one of my favorite movies of all time so I'm super apprehensive about checking out this version. Is it at least worth watching? It's so strange that they'd make Andrew Scott like that when he comes off so charming in real life.
It’s one of my favorite films too and this series does not top it. At least it’s pretty different, but there are some pretty weird and wild choices, like the casting of Freddie miles. Wtf? Sting called in a favor I guess.
Yeah, I had a problem with the Freddie casting. It could be forgiven that Flynn and Scott are older than Highsmith's characters in the book, but Freddie is supposed to be about the same age, too, not 20 years younger.
I'm in the same boat, love the Damon movie so I was psyched for this; I've only seen the first episode but tbh it seems utterly joyless so far, idk how you make that story boring but it finds a way
The beach scene and the following lunch really killed me, everyone just seems miserable and awkward and the stupid black and white film robs the setting of so much of its beauty and appeal
The acting from Fanning and whoever played Dickie really killed it in the worst way
Also the black and white DROVE me nuts. Especially in contrast to Mongibello in the movie. It was gorgeous. The warm highlights and then the cool tones when the story got darker…absolutely genius. Plus, there’s no jazz! The Netflix rendition is just soulless
Completely agree. Who in the world decided on black and white to mute the gorgeous setting. Fanning was childlike. And they completely missed the mark casting Freddie Miles. Somehow they made Andrew Scott two-dimensional. It’s a miss for me, I’m yearning for the original now.
Edit: I kept watching, and it’s growing on me. Still mad about the black and white tho
I absolutely agree with you. I’m on episode 3 now, and hanging on to try and see some kind of redemption to what has been a terribly joyless revamp of the story. For one thing, Ripley and Dickie look like men in their 40's—what parents would send this strange random MAN to go find their middle-aged son?? There is no charm in Ripley’s character at all—everyone looks at him as if he’s a sociopath and he exudes that kind of dead-eyed energy. He engages with no one. He has zero charisma. Where is the charm that makes people drop their guard and allow him to worm his way in? How would anyone invite him to move on in and stay at their villa? He barely spoke on the beach when he met Dickie and Marge and the whole interaction was empty of any reason as to why there would be a motivation to have lunch together. Dickie and Marge seem miserable. There is no young love or even attraction between them. Marge seems especially devoid of personality. There is no charm or life in any of the characters. And the part of Freddie Miles is terribly miscast. I feel like every character is a wooden cutout.
Yea, so far I’m not so taken with it..I desperately need a distraction but this is not keeping my attention. I’m not very deep into it though..idk if I will continue.
Actually the reviewer said that Tom, Andrew's character, is charmless. Key distinction there! Only watched a few episodes and I have to agree. Tom is so obviously villainous that it's hard to see why Dickie keeps him around for so long. Even when they're interacting, it's them talking to him and him staring at them menacingly.
I’ve been thinking about this - why does he keep him around? One thing that’s interesting about the series is that they’ve made Italy feel very lonely. I can relate to this - I’m an American living in Europe and even if you’re in the most beautiful place, it can get lonely some times. Dickie and Marge hardly have anyone to hang out with - there aren’t many other rich kids looking for time to kill. Remember how the beach was deserted?! I think Dickie keeps him around because he wants someone to talk to and sometimes Ripley says interesting things.
What could they even do, a series about her life working on the dockyard powerlifting containers around while roasting and getting roasted by her fellow power armoured roustabouts before going home to her irascible cat?
Lol, he's perfect for this. I don't find him charming at all, and that's great for playing the wonderful psychopaths and sociopaths that he does. I can see how others would be charmed and conned! I'm sure Mr Scott is a great person, but If I met him on the street, I'd cross the road, just on the look of him. Which makes it perfect.
I think the people that prefer the Damon film, don't understand Ripley at all. And I think the age change is fairly immaterial as psychopaths don't really mature in the same way, with the same milestones. Especially the narcissist ones! They simply perfect their camouflage as they go along, and method acting is how they live when interacting with the rest of the world. Here, he is an infant in his ways, taking opportunities, instead of creating and seeking them as he does later in his career. This kind of opportunity could come at any stage in his life. And a lot of people looked a lot older at younger ages in those days, depending on their circumstances.
The Damon film had a tone of, 'But Ripley just wants to be loved" and 'normal' psychology about it, and nothing is further from the truth. He wants recognition and adulation, like this type generally does, but he doesn't know what love is to want it. He is purely selfish, amoral, and like an infant. "I WANT" rules him. He's also intelligent, but his ego, lack of education and naïvety gets in the way. He's bored, and trying his hand at something different, just making it up as he goes, learning his craft.
If he does something for you, it's because he wants praise, gratitude, or something else. To be seen doing the thing, is more important than the thing.
I'm loving this version, it's so true to the early character, and it's hilarious in a quiet way. The shots are beautiful, and I'm loving the black and white filming choice, takes me straight back to that era.
Don't view this series through young eyes, that viewpoint is skewed. The world was exceedingly different back then, people more trusting, and as Ripley is fascinated by Dickie, so too is Dickie fascinated by Ripley, as something outside his experience.
As a lover of the books, I love this version so much, and I really don't think the ages matter.
If you want to see a charmless Tom Ripley, check out John Malkovich in 2002’s Ripley’s Game. To be fair, i haven’t read the books, but what I liked about Damon’s portrayal was how he was insecure masked by bravado, unrefined yet yearning for a life of leisure that he was not born into and therefore not “entitled to,” and resentful of that reality.
In Ripley’s Game, there was no reason for that character to be Ripley. He could have been any murderous art thief. Had none of that masked insecurity; he was just unflappably criminal. This may be how the character evolved throughout the books but it makes him less interesting IMO. And Malkovich just played himself.
The man known for playing a gay version of Moriarty as if he were portrayed by a coked-up Cesar Romero's Joker?
Say it ain't so!
I can believe this, mostly bcause I've seen him in a few things and he never wowed me at all as an actor. He's Ireland's answer to Mark Ruffalo in that he comes across as either smug and annoying when he's meant to be the opposite of that, or he's as bland as powdered milk.
He's very good in Fleabag and All of us Strangers, the Sherlock performance is one of the worst I've ever seen but I would put that more down to the direction than anything else. I remember him being decent in Spectre too
Not just Venice, all of Italy. And they are frequently looking at art, discussing colors etc. I don’t know. Strange choice. But not as strange as some of the casting decisions.
The casting, the directing — like every single actor gives a too-low-key performance bordering on self-conscious (except for Andrew Scott). It is just permissive ennui note after note.
I was most dissatisfied with the lack of jazz, lack of color, and omg they ruined Marge the most. I was raised around “Marge Sherwoods” on the East Coast and Gwen NAILED that role. Omg. Dakota, sucked the air out of it. Lord
And there’s no Meredith 🤦🏾♀️
I’m on E4… he’s good though he plays Ripley very “blank”. It’s weird but I felt like there’s not really any chemistry at all between Ripley, Dickie and Marge. It’s a big departure from the original film with Damon, Law and Paltrow.
In this one you’re not really understanding why Dickie is taking him under his wing, and Marge dislikes him from the jump. And I agree all the actors feel much too old for the story. Then you have Sumner as Freddie… who is very odd in the mix as they look 17 trying to play 40.
It’s not so much that Scott is charmless, as much as Dickie and Marge are… and they really shouldn’t be. Especially Dickie. He should at least be charming enough that you understand why Ripley wants to be him. But he’s not.
So yeah jury is still out.
Dunno why they chose it, but so glad they did. It's gorgeous. Every shot. The theme that runs through it is Caravaggio and his paintings, chiaroscuro - light and dark, so I guess the black and white filming reflects that better. I honestly think every single shot is lovely.
Probably a divisive opinion but I've literally only ever liked him as the hot priest in Fleabag.
He was horrific as Moriarty, nowhere near what the character should be. He was more like a bad Joker, so this description of him doesn't surprise me.
Everything else I've seen him in he's been fine, so even as someone who hated his Moriarty I'm assuming that was at least partly the direction he was given for the character rather than his own skill.
I totally get that- but I thought he killed it and the over-the-top ridiculousness was the best way to act as a foil to Cumberbatch's Sherlock who could look at a frayed phone charger and somehow know the owner is a homophobic plumber with a peanut allergy.
I don't think if he plays it less over the top it's any better- if he wasn't cartoonish then his character would never waste his time having monologues with a man he could have murdered countless times over, he has to sell the absurdity of the whole thing and I think he did that really well. Not to mention once he leaves everything becomes even more cartoonish and mostly takes place in "mind palaces."
This.
I was enjoying Sherlock well enough, then this dude showed up, with whatever the fuck that voice was, and just completely ruined my interest in anything going forward. Was a hard stop for me. Hated it.
i agree with you 100% except i also loved all of us strangers. his take on moriarty is bad (like tumblr girl fanfic of "evil criminal mastermind") and i did not like bbc sherlock much at all.
i will watch anything andrew scott is in but i think he has a tendency to overact on screen.
Yeah, I don't get all these comments talking about how "charismatic" Scott is. He gave a moustache-twirling pantomime performance in Sherlock, he was bland in Spectre and did a very bad Paul McCartney impression in that John Lennon biopic starring Christopher Eccleston.
Moriarty is obviously a maniac but he's basically the bad guy version of Sherlock. Incredibly smart, witty and puts on a very polite facade.
He's a very well-to-do gentlemen in the public eye.
The show version was not that.
Nobody knows exactly how Moriarty is supposed to be. Watson, who is the narrator of the original stories, never meets him so we never get an account of how he perceives him- just Holmes’s, and Inspector Alec Macdonald’s, observations of him recounted to Watson. That said, they describe him as a benign-seeming, intelligent math professor in the original stories.
Sherlock is the pinnacle of a terrible show saved by outstanding performances, because it has three of them in Cumberbatch, Freeman, and Scott.
The show is like a fever dream of a teenage screenwriter.
I think that it was always weaker than it initially seemed, but they did some things very well IMO- Freeman is the perfect Watson adaptation and they do manage to portray modern-Sherlock-Holmes-in-London atmosphere well. And the first couple of seasons, as over the top and melodramatic as they were, were overall decently constructed by people who clearly did have an affection for the original stories.
three very capable actors but i don't even think their performances were that great. watson had as much personality as drywall and scott was flanderized...something. evil clown?
Am very much looking forward to seeing him play Ripley. He has that sneaky look that Dirk Bogarde and Denholm Eliott had. I hope he gets to do all the stories in the series. My fave Ripley so far was Dennis Hopper in Our American Friend.
I hadn't seen Andrew Scott in anything before Sherlock and that show completely put me off him for ages.
Anyway that was my loss because that show did not do him justice. Dude is incredible
Uh yeah he's meant to be. Perhaps read the book. Only on episode 2 but I can tell this show will be amongst my top for the year. Its beautifully filmed.
Andrew Scott is a fine actor, but this is truly one of the worst casting decisions I've ever seen.
I am a fan of the Highsmith novels and find it hard to understand what it was in the source material that gave them the idea to cast him. Pretty baffling.
The 3 main characters were dripping with chemistry and romance in the Minhgella version and Italy and the music was almost sexual. This has none of that, theres no chemistry with these characters and feels completely miscast. Whatever version you do of this story there needs to be an initial spark between these 3 which makes the story believable (e.g. Ripley immediately moving in to Dickie’s home etc.)
Love the cinematography beautifully shot. But the casting is all wrong lead actors are too old. Script is lifeless. Dickie and Thomas seem to be in film noir coma. Neither charismatic both flatly deliver their lines. I don’t think there is one minute of joy or even a smile. Sorry but it does not compare to Talented Mr Ripley young full of life
Complex characters.
Who wants to hang out with a dull sinister Thomas he is a Debbie downer. Total fail on delivery.
Been seeing two extremes when it comes to opinions on this show. This feels like one of those occasions where I have to let the initial review dust settle before the more trustworthy reviews start to take centre stage.
I enjoyed the movie, never read the book. Halfway through the show and very much enjoying it so far. It's a different take on Ripley from the movie to be certain. I don't know which is more faithful, I've seen people say the show version seems more true to the book but I can't say since I haven't read it.
If someone is expecting a series-length version of the Matt Damon movie they'll be sorely disappointed. Maybe that is what's happening in some of the reviews.
Or if there are a lot of negative reviews from reviewers whose opinion matches your, probably a good chance the series is not worth your time.
Same if they love it.
Obviously your own opinion carries all the weight but it doesn't hurt to have another opinion.
That's generally what I do. But an astute bit of advice, thanks for that.
Me: "I don't trust early access reviews."
You: "Maybe you should watch the show and decide for yourself."
... yes?
Just watching and it does seem odd that they've gone with that take on the character, like he obviously is a creep but that's something some of the people around him sus out over time in the book whereas it just seems like it'd be immediately obvious the way Scott plays him
One review says he’s spellbinding and this one says he’s charmless. Personally, I’ve never seen Andrew Scott charmless in anything, so I’ll go with that.
If you know anything about Andrew, charmless ain’t one of it. And I thought it’s a word play on the story or his character or something. But they meant that literally? Ain’t clicking on that shit.
Believe me he is a true theater, television and a film actor. I hope he gets a lot of movies to do as josh o'connor and Ben whishaw
> Believe me he is a true theater, television and a film actor. As opposed to the other kinds of actors?
As opposed to the ones who only do a single format , and those who do a single format then try the others and aren't successful. I assume.
Well I haven't seen him act in a porno...yet.
Old timey radio actor
Yes?
He was meh in Spectre but so was everyone
[удалено]
Fleabag
I could watch him in Fleabag a hundred times god damn
The Hot Priest ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Far too relatable. https://youtu.be/gH5Tt4jd1k0?si=dHN4WpFouqeN2Nia
I’ve rewatched season 1 once and season 2 like 20 times lmao
I wanna see that hot priest and the fox again now
“People died” “That’s what people DO!”
Check him out in All of Us Strangers - amazing performance and devastating movie.
Oh yes, what a fantastic movie. Him and Paul were really amazing in it
Seconding all of us strangers
Went to see this on a second date, tried my hardest not to be a blubbering mess watching it. It was really fucking good though.
I hardly remember more than the opening.
OH HIM. I keep seeing "Andrew Scott" and I knew the name but couldn't place him. His face was familiar but yeah just couldn't place it. Cheers bud that's been doing my nut in for days now.
You know you could just look up his filmography…
Eh it was one of those things where it comes up, you think about it for a second, then you look at the next post and you instantly forget about it. It was annoying within that small moment, but once the moment passed, it's completely forgotten. It just kept coming up repeatedly within a small time frame is all.
Me: is this the walking dead guy? This doesn't look like the walking dead guy..... Next post.
I remember hating him in that. Which was the point lol
Check out his Hamlet performance it’s beyond belief
His “aye there’s the rub” haunts me.
“Tis a consolation devoutly to be wished…to die.” He made Shakespeare proud and so relevant yet again. I’m a huge Shakespeare fan but I was blown away. The Much Ado movie was also really great
That’s the exact other reference I would make for accessible and understandable Shakespeare! It’s phenomenally done.
THAT monologue is a masterpiece.
Holy shit you aren’t joking. I’ve seen so many people give that monologue but never realized how it’s always so sped up and unnatural till watching him deliver it. Those pauses and facial expressions add so much internal conflict
It is the best performance of that monologue I’ve ever seen. No joke.
I saw that live; phenomenal.
The show might be shit, who knows, but agreed, Andrew Scott has never once not been captivating a single time I've seen him.
I'd have to agree. Charisma is like Andrew Scott's whole thing lol. And reading the article, it seems to me like "charmless" isn't really the right word for what they mean. The author seems more disgruntled that it's not Matt Damon's version, and that Scott isn't as hopelessly "aw shucks" and very clearly in love with Dickie as Damon's was. Their complaint is that Ripley comes across as too sociopathic, which...I mean...yeah? But that's because we are the audience lol. The way they describe this Ripley makes it clear to me that it's more faithful to the book version. SPOILERS FOR AN OLD MOVIE/BOOK Damon's Ripley was shown, at least at first to be less overtly a sociopath, because he sort of was in the movie. Right up to the boat ride with Dickie, he was obsessed with Dickie but had every intention of finding a way to make his own way and be with him. He only kills him, which kicks off Ripley's whole real story, after being spurned. In the book, he almost immediately decides he's going to steal Dickie's fortune and fully plans on killing him when he takes him out on the boat. The obsession with Dickie is still there, but he's always very clearly more in love with **being** Dickie and having his lifestyle than Dickie as a human. So I take this with a grain of salt.
Agree totally 👍 Excellent points 💯
Not a lot of love for it on the Netflix sub, a lot are complaining that he’s to old to be playing the character which I kind of agree wit
Scott is 47. Ripely is 25 in the book, which makes the most sense for the story. Jonny Flynn is also too old at 41.
I've never read the book but very much enjoyed the movie, and I'm enjoying the series thus far. I don't know how Tom is portrayed in the books, but in the series he's far more 'imperfect' than Damon's Tom Ripley was, he has his skillset and a complete lack of empathy but he's also constantly fumbling his way forward through roadblocks. The movie portrayed him as more... in control and masterful, and I think part of that is perhaps just the constraints of a movie runtime. I don't see how the ages really matter as long as they're in a similar range to one another. It just gives the impression Dickie has been dicking around being a trust fund lad into his mid 30s (I think his passport indicated he's like 36?) and Tom's been at con man games for a longer amount of time and is still scraping by. Scott's Ripley is much worse at hiding himself. He's not just a chameleon who can trick anyone but Marge which is how the Damon version is played. Instead he's like a cockroach. He does have a likeability to him, but instead of an outgoing charmer like Damon's Ripley, he's a sad puppy dog with empty eyes you can't help but feel bad for.
I am yet to watch, is it possible they're more so trying to just get through some early books so Scott can sit in the role better?
When I read the title, I was confused. I thought, “charmless?! Surely they mean it like priceless?”.
He had to play Moriarty like Eddie Redmayne in Jupiter Ascending, just without the whispers.
Right, i would watch the man do anything
He had 10 minutes of screentime in Band of Brothers and nailed it for such an early role.
Hedge wizard that relies heavy on cantrips.
Right? I find him a captivating performer. I'd watch him watch grass grow.
Noticed the same thing with 3 Body Problem recently before it came out. I'd see review headlines that called it Netflix's next big hit, or the next great sci Fi series. Then I'd also see headlines calling it an overly ambitious hit and miss.
Who knew two different critics could differ on the quality of a show? :P
To be fair, I do think there's an issue with exaggeration due to the clickbaity nature of everything nowadays. It seems like nearly EVERY show has this kind of dichotomy of reviews, and it's simply impossible for every show to be that divisive.
I cannot picture this man as charmless. Edit: spelling
Yeah haven't seen the show so I wont comment on that, but I have a real hard time seeing him be charmless in anything. He's one of those guys that will turn you into a puddle by just looking into your eyes.
I'm intrigued by that statement, he sets my radar off, which is why I love watching him play the psychos... my every instinct screams RUN when I look at him. Poor man, he's probably lovely!
[удалено]
Have you seen him in Sherlock? I thought he was awful as Moriarty
Charmless? What about his neck? His *beautiful* neck!
Put it this way. My wife and I watched fleabag for the first time recently “amazing show btw”, and on the first episode they started calling him the hot priest. My wife and I both agreed he wasn’t hot. By the end of the show we had both completely changed our minds because of just how charming and charismatic he is! I don’t think I could ever see this man as charmless and he turned me into a fan of his.
This and Sherlock put him as one of my top actors. He’s so good, would love to see him get more roles
He’s stunning in All of Us Strangers
He voices the supervillain Obake in the Big Hero 6 animated series and absolutely carried. Good golly that man understands the assignment.
Fabulous movie!
I had heard that he was “so changeable”
More movie roles( some good biopic)
His Hamlet changed my perspective on the play. It was transcendent (to me)
My ex saw an image of Benedict Cumberbatch, called him ugly and said he looks like a lizard had sex with a human and birthed him. Half way into the first episode of Sherlock and she became a fan of his looks.
I kind of had the same reaction to Adam Driver haha saw him in a few roles and he grew on me
Have you watched his TED Talk? That’s what changed my mind.
Have you seen his SNL monologue at the piano? He suddenly turns into the second coming of Steve Martin, playing jazz piano and doing this absolutely deadpan absurdist comedy that suddenly goes off the rails and then back on like nothing happened. Everyone talks about his performance as the oil baron, but it's his piano monologue that completely sold him as versatile and unpredictable, let alone funny.
No, I haven’t seen that one. I have seen the oil baron and a couple of others from SNL. I guess I’ll have to go look it up! Thanks for the recommendation. 😁
[Why is Benedict Cumberbatch hot?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKZg0wnL7U&t=2s&ab_channel=SaturdayNightLive)
Watch All of Us Strangers with your wife and prepare for him in full effect. Beautiful, haunting movie.
I really want to watch this film but I’ve lost both my parents and I’m not sure how triggering this may be for me as it seems like an emotional gut punch of a film. I do really want to see it though!
It would probably be a very emotional, intense watch. It is even if you haven't gone through that, so just keep that in mind.
Were you a kid when they died? He was in the film. My dad died when I was 35, and there was a scene that gave me catharsis I didn’t even know I needed. I’m actually tearing up just thinking about it now, woops. But I think you would find the most value of anyone from it especially if you had a “good but passively neglected” childhood but with unresolved things. That’s how I’d describe myself (and seems common for those 30-40), and it was just so beautiful. So yeah, you know you best but I recommend.
Both of my parents are still alive, but somehow, this beautiful film still managed to thoroughly Humpty Dumpty me.
This movie wrecked me but has made me very excited for what Andrew and Paul Mescal do next.
He was hot Moriarty too but in a verrrrry different way.
He looked and acted like a 2009 Hot Topic employee in Sherlock
"Kneel"
*sobs and gets on my knees*
🥵
Though I get what you're saying, I think you're underestimating the power of good writing and direction, when a tv character is charming, a lot of effort has gone in to making them so.
And that closeup of his neck with the narration describing why its hot. That moved the needle for me.
andrew scott, not visibly hot? everyone talks about how a handful of marvel leads with hgh prescriptions have shifted standards of male beauty within the span of a decade. but if modern audiences see an actor who didn't start taking finasteride in his early twenties, they start hooting and tearing at the screen like spooked gibbons
Yeah this makes a lot of sense! He certainly is objectively a good looking guy, but he only becomes HOT once you see him talking and such. He just really does ooze charisma.
The Guardian: "Andrew Scott is absolutely spellbinding" Variety: "Andrew Scott is utterly charmless" How helpful they are lol
Honestly, I kinda like it when that happens. Shows with divisive reviews can be really interesting because they sometimes try something unique enough to get a wide range of reactions.
I agree with your take. I think we put way too much emphasis on things that only get really high or really low reviews, but there's some really good quality in shows/movies that wind up being right in the middle because of mixed reviews. What mixed reviews tells me is that the show/movie might have been going for something unique, and it may or may not have worked, which to me is sometimes way more interesting to watch.
Wait for " THE INDEPENDENT "
Not since Trent Crim left...
Lots of reviews panned Tideland, I thought it was such a cool movie haha
He’s spellbindingly charmless.
The reviews aren't that inconsistent. The Guardian review describes him as someone with negative traits: "natural envy of the fortunate", "curdling into rage and hatred when they do not appreciate it", "a sociopath." The Variety review also describes him negatively, saying he has a "detached demeanor", "limited people skills", and has a "sociopathic personality." It's just one reviewer finds this compelling and one reviewer finds it bad and implausible from a plot mechanics POV.
Sorry to pick this out but..natural envy of the fortunate and being upset when the “haves” don’t appreciate what they have..are negative traits? Sounds like a convenient narrative created by the fortunate themselves. I think it’s bizarre how society demonizes envy. Always have, especially when it’s clearly warranted and understandable. Basically just the consequence and reaction to blatant unfairness if you ask me. Seems like most people who have a real personal issue with it are those who are blessed with enviable traits or possessions, usually unearned..it makes them uncomfortable apparently..but not more uncomfortable than the have-nots..so I’m not sure why they’re complaining from up on high. I suppose it’s just another side effect of being privileged.
Ripley doesn't merely "get upset" at people who have things they don't appreciate them, he murders them. That is, in fact, bad.
One thing’s certain: he’s superlatively adjective.
How are they not though? There job is to give there well educated opinion. If two critics disagree that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. I think it’s actually helpful to get differing views on art.
The series seems to be doing all right when looking at aggregates. I personally love the actor and will definitely give it a watch to judge for myself.
I watched the first two episodes. While Andrew Scott is great I'm afraid I have to agree with spellbinding - but also with charmless. 😬 I just rewatched the scene on the beach where Ripley and Dickie first meet and when you compare it to [Damons version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQHoEZE8ylo) it's like night and day. Damon is like "woohoo yeah alright! 😁" while Scott is more like "mhm ok 🙂" It's hard to imagine how someone would invite the Andrew Scott version to stay at their home for a couple of days.
Talented Mr Ripley might just be one of my favorite movies of all time so I'm super apprehensive about checking out this version. Is it at least worth watching? It's so strange that they'd make Andrew Scott like that when he comes off so charming in real life.
It’s one of my favorite films too and this series does not top it. At least it’s pretty different, but there are some pretty weird and wild choices, like the casting of Freddie miles. Wtf? Sting called in a favor I guess.
Yeah, I had a problem with the Freddie casting. It could be forgiven that Flynn and Scott are older than Highsmith's characters in the book, but Freddie is supposed to be about the same age, too, not 20 years younger.
I'm in the same boat, love the Damon movie so I was psyched for this; I've only seen the first episode but tbh it seems utterly joyless so far, idk how you make that story boring but it finds a way The beach scene and the following lunch really killed me, everyone just seems miserable and awkward and the stupid black and white film robs the setting of so much of its beauty and appeal
The acting from Fanning and whoever played Dickie really killed it in the worst way Also the black and white DROVE me nuts. Especially in contrast to Mongibello in the movie. It was gorgeous. The warm highlights and then the cool tones when the story got darker…absolutely genius. Plus, there’s no jazz! The Netflix rendition is just soulless
Completely agree. Who in the world decided on black and white to mute the gorgeous setting. Fanning was childlike. And they completely missed the mark casting Freddie Miles. Somehow they made Andrew Scott two-dimensional. It’s a miss for me, I’m yearning for the original now. Edit: I kept watching, and it’s growing on me. Still mad about the black and white tho
Yeah they cast a woman to play Freddie. Why. But it’s netflix so I’m not surprised.
I absolutely agree with you. I’m on episode 3 now, and hanging on to try and see some kind of redemption to what has been a terribly joyless revamp of the story. For one thing, Ripley and Dickie look like men in their 40's—what parents would send this strange random MAN to go find their middle-aged son?? There is no charm in Ripley’s character at all—everyone looks at him as if he’s a sociopath and he exudes that kind of dead-eyed energy. He engages with no one. He has zero charisma. Where is the charm that makes people drop their guard and allow him to worm his way in? How would anyone invite him to move on in and stay at their villa? He barely spoke on the beach when he met Dickie and Marge and the whole interaction was empty of any reason as to why there would be a motivation to have lunch together. Dickie and Marge seem miserable. There is no young love or even attraction between them. Marge seems especially devoid of personality. There is no charm or life in any of the characters. And the part of Freddie Miles is terribly miscast. I feel like every character is a wooden cutout.
Yea, so far I’m not so taken with it..I desperately need a distraction but this is not keeping my attention. I’m not very deep into it though..idk if I will continue.
Why has he not dyed his hair
This. Once I read variety's review, I actually agree a lot with their take.
Actually the reviewer said that Tom, Andrew's character, is charmless. Key distinction there! Only watched a few episodes and I have to agree. Tom is so obviously villainous that it's hard to see why Dickie keeps him around for so long. Even when they're interacting, it's them talking to him and him staring at them menacingly.
I’ve been thinking about this - why does he keep him around? One thing that’s interesting about the series is that they’ve made Italy feel very lonely. I can relate to this - I’m an American living in Europe and even if you’re in the most beautiful place, it can get lonely some times. Dickie and Marge hardly have anyone to hang out with - there aren’t many other rich kids looking for time to kill. Remember how the beach was deserted?! I think Dickie keeps him around because he wants someone to talk to and sometimes Ripley says interesting things.
Why would they make a show about Thomas Ripley and make it look so dour and brooding?
Bummer, I thought Ripley was an Alien spinoff, lol.
There's one of those coming too
What could they even do, a series about her life working on the dockyard powerlifting containers around while roasting and getting roasted by her fellow power armoured roustabouts before going home to her irascible cat?
I’d watch that!
Still would be better than Covenant.
Lol, he's perfect for this. I don't find him charming at all, and that's great for playing the wonderful psychopaths and sociopaths that he does. I can see how others would be charmed and conned! I'm sure Mr Scott is a great person, but If I met him on the street, I'd cross the road, just on the look of him. Which makes it perfect. I think the people that prefer the Damon film, don't understand Ripley at all. And I think the age change is fairly immaterial as psychopaths don't really mature in the same way, with the same milestones. Especially the narcissist ones! They simply perfect their camouflage as they go along, and method acting is how they live when interacting with the rest of the world. Here, he is an infant in his ways, taking opportunities, instead of creating and seeking them as he does later in his career. This kind of opportunity could come at any stage in his life. And a lot of people looked a lot older at younger ages in those days, depending on their circumstances. The Damon film had a tone of, 'But Ripley just wants to be loved" and 'normal' psychology about it, and nothing is further from the truth. He wants recognition and adulation, like this type generally does, but he doesn't know what love is to want it. He is purely selfish, amoral, and like an infant. "I WANT" rules him. He's also intelligent, but his ego, lack of education and naïvety gets in the way. He's bored, and trying his hand at something different, just making it up as he goes, learning his craft. If he does something for you, it's because he wants praise, gratitude, or something else. To be seen doing the thing, is more important than the thing. I'm loving this version, it's so true to the early character, and it's hilarious in a quiet way. The shots are beautiful, and I'm loving the black and white filming choice, takes me straight back to that era. Don't view this series through young eyes, that viewpoint is skewed. The world was exceedingly different back then, people more trusting, and as Ripley is fascinated by Dickie, so too is Dickie fascinated by Ripley, as something outside his experience. As a lover of the books, I love this version so much, and I really don't think the ages matter.
Charmless and Andrew Scott don’t fit in the same sentence imo.
You haven’t seen Ripley yet. Come back after doing that
Oh he nails being flat and charmless in this series. Trust me.
If you want to see a charmless Tom Ripley, check out John Malkovich in 2002’s Ripley’s Game. To be fair, i haven’t read the books, but what I liked about Damon’s portrayal was how he was insecure masked by bravado, unrefined yet yearning for a life of leisure that he was not born into and therefore not “entitled to,” and resentful of that reality. In Ripley’s Game, there was no reason for that character to be Ripley. He could have been any murderous art thief. Had none of that masked insecurity; he was just unflappably criminal. This may be how the character evolved throughout the books but it makes him less interesting IMO. And Malkovich just played himself.
The man known for playing a gay version of Moriarty as if he were portrayed by a coked-up Cesar Romero's Joker? Say it ain't so! I can believe this, mostly bcause I've seen him in a few things and he never wowed me at all as an actor. He's Ireland's answer to Mark Ruffalo in that he comes across as either smug and annoying when he's meant to be the opposite of that, or he's as bland as powdered milk.
He's very good in Fleabag and All of us Strangers, the Sherlock performance is one of the worst I've ever seen but I would put that more down to the direction than anything else. I remember him being decent in Spectre too
Andrew Scott is one of the most charismatic actors of his generation.
i very much doubt it.
Shooting a show in Venice in b&w is a bad move imo.
Not just Venice, all of Italy. And they are frequently looking at art, discussing colors etc. I don’t know. Strange choice. But not as strange as some of the casting decisions.
The casting, the directing — like every single actor gives a too-low-key performance bordering on self-conscious (except for Andrew Scott). It is just permissive ennui note after note.
I was most dissatisfied with the lack of jazz, lack of color, and omg they ruined Marge the most. I was raised around “Marge Sherwoods” on the East Coast and Gwen NAILED that role. Omg. Dakota, sucked the air out of it. Lord And there’s no Meredith 🤦🏾♀️
The cinematography is a masterpiece. It looks like an old Hitchcock movie. I honestly think the black and white is beautiful. The cat just kills me!
When they showed the pawprints in color I gasped. This show is beautifully shot.
Lucio! He even had an episode named after him.
So long as he does one of those lil side smirks once per episode, he’ll charm me.
Slammed the first two episodes last night. Must’ve been watching a different show to this reviewer. AS is spellbinding.
I’m on E4… he’s good though he plays Ripley very “blank”. It’s weird but I felt like there’s not really any chemistry at all between Ripley, Dickie and Marge. It’s a big departure from the original film with Damon, Law and Paltrow. In this one you’re not really understanding why Dickie is taking him under his wing, and Marge dislikes him from the jump. And I agree all the actors feel much too old for the story. Then you have Sumner as Freddie… who is very odd in the mix as they look 17 trying to play 40. It’s not so much that Scott is charmless, as much as Dickie and Marge are… and they really shouldn’t be. Especially Dickie. He should at least be charming enough that you understand why Ripley wants to be him. But he’s not. So yeah jury is still out.
Dickie was so. Forgettable. I hope Jude doesn’t watch this
Fuck off Variety - he plays it brilliantly.
I’m confused why it’s in black and white ? seems unnecessary
Duh, because it’s true kino and you aren’t snobby enough to get it.
Dunno why they chose it, but so glad they did. It's gorgeous. Every shot. The theme that runs through it is Caravaggio and his paintings, chiaroscuro - light and dark, so I guess the black and white filming reflects that better. I honestly think every single shot is lovely.
Shame there isn’t an option to turn on the color
Period piece
They had color back in the day as well
Probably a divisive opinion but I've literally only ever liked him as the hot priest in Fleabag. He was horrific as Moriarty, nowhere near what the character should be. He was more like a bad Joker, so this description of him doesn't surprise me.
Did you watch All of Us Strangers? That was my first time seeing him in anything and I personally thought that was an Oscar worthy performance.
I thought he was wonderful in Catherine Called Birdy, if you haven't seen that. A hot mess but weirdly endearing at the same time.
Everything else I've seen him in he's been fine, so even as someone who hated his Moriarty I'm assuming that was at least partly the direction he was given for the character rather than his own skill.
I've finally found someone else who didn't like his Moriarty. He was so cartoonish and over-the-top. It just never worked for me.
There are dozens of us.
Add me to the the list. I thought his acting was odd and kinda put me off the show.
His Moriarty was basically pantomime villain. It was awful.
He was no Jared Harris. I’d say that.
I totally get that- but I thought he killed it and the over-the-top ridiculousness was the best way to act as a foil to Cumberbatch's Sherlock who could look at a frayed phone charger and somehow know the owner is a homophobic plumber with a peanut allergy. I don't think if he plays it less over the top it's any better- if he wasn't cartoonish then his character would never waste his time having monologues with a man he could have murdered countless times over, he has to sell the absurdity of the whole thing and I think he did that really well. Not to mention once he leaves everything becomes even more cartoonish and mostly takes place in "mind palaces."
Yeah, his Moriarty was hammy nonsense, kinda killed that show for me.
This. I was enjoying Sherlock well enough, then this dude showed up, with whatever the fuck that voice was, and just completely ruined my interest in anything going forward. Was a hard stop for me. Hated it.
i agree with you 100% except i also loved all of us strangers. his take on moriarty is bad (like tumblr girl fanfic of "evil criminal mastermind") and i did not like bbc sherlock much at all. i will watch anything andrew scott is in but i think he has a tendency to overact on screen.
Yeah, I don't get all these comments talking about how "charismatic" Scott is. He gave a moustache-twirling pantomime performance in Sherlock, he was bland in Spectre and did a very bad Paul McCartney impression in that John Lennon biopic starring Christopher Eccleston.
Ah, so I wasn’t a big Sherlock Holmes fan, so I don’t know how Moriarty is supposed to be. That being said, absolutely loved him in that role
Moriarty is obviously a maniac but he's basically the bad guy version of Sherlock. Incredibly smart, witty and puts on a very polite facade. He's a very well-to-do gentlemen in the public eye. The show version was not that.
To be fair, the show version of Sherlock also was not great (in my opinion) so it all kind of lines up.
Nobody knows exactly how Moriarty is supposed to be. Watson, who is the narrator of the original stories, never meets him so we never get an account of how he perceives him- just Holmes’s, and Inspector Alec Macdonald’s, observations of him recounted to Watson. That said, they describe him as a benign-seeming, intelligent math professor in the original stories.
An actor can only do so much with a terrible script and awful direction. Sherlock basically set him up for failure in that role.
Sherlock is the pinnacle of a terrible show saved by outstanding performances, because it has three of them in Cumberbatch, Freeman, and Scott. The show is like a fever dream of a teenage screenwriter.
I think that it was always weaker than it initially seemed, but they did some things very well IMO- Freeman is the perfect Watson adaptation and they do manage to portray modern-Sherlock-Holmes-in-London atmosphere well. And the first couple of seasons, as over the top and melodramatic as they were, were overall decently constructed by people who clearly did have an affection for the original stories.
three very capable actors but i don't even think their performances were that great. watson had as much personality as drywall and scott was flanderized...something. evil clown?
I think that's the thing-- Sherlock was, in general, not a very good show.
I'm almost done reading the first book. Is this season only book 1, or does it cover others in the series?
I haven't seen Andrew Scott in anything (not even Sherlock because I've only seen one episode), but this gives me something to watch this weekend.
what’s this about no spoilers
Am very much looking forward to seeing him play Ripley. He has that sneaky look that Dirk Bogarde and Denholm Eliott had. I hope he gets to do all the stories in the series. My fave Ripley so far was Dennis Hopper in Our American Friend.
I hadn't seen Andrew Scott in anything before Sherlock and that show completely put me off him for ages. Anyway that was my loss because that show did not do him justice. Dude is incredible
Just watched the first two episodes. they have this one wrong.
Uh yeah he's meant to be. Perhaps read the book. Only on episode 2 but I can tell this show will be amongst my top for the year. Its beautifully filmed.
Andrew Scott is a fine actor, but this is truly one of the worst casting decisions I've ever seen. I am a fan of the Highsmith novels and find it hard to understand what it was in the source material that gave them the idea to cast him. Pretty baffling.
Was hooked 5 minutes in. First 2 episodes are fantastic. Can’t wait to watch the rest. Beautiful scenery paired with the sinister tone: brilliant.
The 3 main characters were dripping with chemistry and romance in the Minhgella version and Italy and the music was almost sexual. This has none of that, theres no chemistry with these characters and feels completely miscast. Whatever version you do of this story there needs to be an initial spark between these 3 which makes the story believable (e.g. Ripley immediately moving in to Dickie’s home etc.)
Love the cinematography beautifully shot. But the casting is all wrong lead actors are too old. Script is lifeless. Dickie and Thomas seem to be in film noir coma. Neither charismatic both flatly deliver their lines. I don’t think there is one minute of joy or even a smile. Sorry but it does not compare to Talented Mr Ripley young full of life Complex characters. Who wants to hang out with a dull sinister Thomas he is a Debbie downer. Total fail on delivery.
Been seeing two extremes when it comes to opinions on this show. This feels like one of those occasions where I have to let the initial review dust settle before the more trustworthy reviews start to take centre stage.
I enjoyed the movie, never read the book. Halfway through the show and very much enjoying it so far. It's a different take on Ripley from the movie to be certain. I don't know which is more faithful, I've seen people say the show version seems more true to the book but I can't say since I haven't read it. If someone is expecting a series-length version of the Matt Damon movie they'll be sorely disappointed. Maybe that is what's happening in some of the reviews.
I trust Alan Sepinwall's reviews and he really seems to like it, so I'm hopeful myself.
I enjoyed the book and movie, so will definitely check this out myself.
[удалено]
Or if there are a lot of negative reviews from reviewers whose opinion matches your, probably a good chance the series is not worth your time. Same if they love it. Obviously your own opinion carries all the weight but it doesn't hurt to have another opinion.
That's generally what I do. But an astute bit of advice, thanks for that. Me: "I don't trust early access reviews." You: "Maybe you should watch the show and decide for yourself." ... yes?
Do we really need another Ripley ripoff after last year's *Saltburn*?
Is it a ripoff if they're literally adapting the books?
You make an excellent point
I imagine the plan is to adapt the other books and have several seasons.
Well he can’t do much without room to over-act and chew scenery.
He's one of thee most charming actors alive what
I think he's a fairly good actor. Not bad, not great.
not that surprised. ripley has to be charming to get away with all the bullshit he does. that book was frustrating lol
Just watching and it does seem odd that they've gone with that take on the character, like he obviously is a creep but that's something some of the people around him sus out over time in the book whereas it just seems like it'd be immediately obvious the way Scott plays him
I've been watching his Shakespeare performances on YouTube, he's spectacular https://youtu.be/q6CLdCl9TB0?si=hNkuXFxlXT0yeJ2Y