For those who grouse about Matt Damon, I can only say read Patricia Highsmith's very entertaining psychological thriller. If you find the title character in this film callow and sexually confused, then I can only that's how he is in the book.
This movie is really a more faithful adaptation than the earlier version PURPLE NOON, directed by Rene Clement. Many people prefer that French film, which is (unlike many French thrillers compared to Hollywood ones) a more traditional crime movie, even containing a more compact, wrap-up-all-the-disturbing-aspects type of ending. It also starred an appealingly sexy and young Alain Delon as a more charismatic Tom Ripley.
However, Highsmith's book clearly points out that character is not charismatic; he only wishes he were more charismatic. Unlike Delon's, Matt Damon's interpretation contains far more complexity. As an actor, he straddles two difficulties: 1) playing someone who's such a nondescript entity that he both envies and despises the idle American rich, 2)making the character intriguing enough for the audience not to lose interest in him, because it is his story and he does carry the film.
"Better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody" is Tom Ripley's philosophy. It's a tragic world-view, and--weirdly--one that many of us can understand, if not empathize with. I wonder how many critics dismiss this movie because it unsettlingly provokes aspects of themselves they'd prefer to remain hidden?
Yes, the movie makes changes, including Cate Blanchett's character, who is not even in the original, but it's faithful in terms of plot and, yes, character. It captures well the book's irony that Tom Ripley so aches to join this class of people, despite the fact that he's smarter and more alive than any of them. Perhaps the story is far-fetched, but it has more to say to all of us than what might first meet the eye.
This movie is really a more faithful adaptation than the earlier version PURPLE NOON, directed by Rene Clement. Many people prefer that French film, which is (unlike many French thrillers compared to Hollywood ones) a more traditional crime movie, even containing a more compact, wrap-up-all-the-disturbing-aspects type of ending. It also starred an appealingly sexy and young Alain Delon as a more charismatic Tom Ripley.
However, Highsmith's book clearly points out that character is not charismatic; he only wishes he were more charismatic. Unlike Delon's, Matt Damon's interpretation contains far more complexity. As an actor, he straddles two difficulties: 1) playing someone who's such a nondescript entity that he both envies and despises the idle American rich, 2)making the character intriguing enough for the audience not to lose interest in him, because it is his story and he does carry the film.
"Better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody" is Tom Ripley's philosophy. It's a tragic world-view, and--weirdly--one that many of us can understand, if not empathize with. I wonder how many critics dismiss this movie because it unsettlingly provokes aspects of themselves they'd prefer to remain hidden?
Yes, the movie makes changes, including Cate Blanchett's character, who is not even in the original, but it's faithful in terms of plot and, yes, character. It captures well the book's irony that Tom Ripley so aches to join this class of people, despite the fact that he's smarter and more alive than any of them. Perhaps the story is far-fetched, but it has more to say to all of us than what might first meet the eye.