Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

adamcarter-63372 This movie has all the ingredients to be a compelling movie. It has a great cast, good director, and the co-writer of The Bourne Identity. However, the movie doesn't explore it's themes and characters enough. It doesn't make full use of its interesting premise. The whole thing wasn't utilized. The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) was a fascinating thriller/drama with a fascinating performance from Matt Damon and many compelling themes. Tom Ripley is a complex character and his books/films need depth. However, if you are able to get over that, this film is entertaining. Just don't expect anything great.

johannes2000-1 This was a decent and entertaining movie in its own right, although (like everyone here) it's hard not to compare it to other previous screen-adaptations of the Ripley stories. Among those there are very notable ones, like "The talented mister Ripley" with Matt Damon, "Plein Soleil" with Alan Delon and "The American Friend" with Dennis Hopper, all with very strong characterizations of Tom Ripley. And then there was the dreadful "Ripley's Game" with John Malkovitch. Well, this "Ripley Underground" stands somewhere in-between, depending on how you look at it. I'm a big fan of the novels of Patricia Highsmith. In the Ripley-series (5 novels) Tom Ripley is as charming as Highsmith's other (anti-)heroes, but he's also a psychopath in the "best" sense of the word: highly intelligent and totally void of any conscience. Highsmith loved to play with the possibilities that a character like this created: devious machinations, ingenious murders and cunning solutions when at times things seemed to turn awry. Another important feature is the unobtrusive way in which Ripley manages all his schemes: he's the quintessential boy-next-door whom no-one suspects of anything bad. Now when you want a scrupulous rendering of Highsmith's novel to the screen, this movie fails. The script did use the premise (the forgery of an already dead painter's work and how master-mind Ripley and his accomplices get away with it) but then gave it all kinds of twists and turns of its own. Also they used all the right names, but gave almost all the protagonists a different characterization from the ones in the novel. Now that is not necessarily bad. In the novel only Ripley himself and Bernard really stand out, the others are a bit bland. Obviously the makers of the movie wanted to give more color to the story and the characters and in this they succeeded. However, as to the Tom Ripley character I have some reservations. Here Tom can hardly be called an unobtrusive boy-next-door, he's actually a very sexy stunner (at many times he walks around shirtless to show-off his chiseled torso to prove so). Moreover he's pictured as an active and sensual lady's man, which the original Ripley is very much NOT, in fact there are countless homosexual innuendo's in all of the Ripley-novels (very convincingly captured in Minghella's "Talented Mr. Ripley"). Again, this doesn't have to make for a bad movie, but it makes you wonder why they should want to use the Highsmith-Ripley character at all, when they change its most essential aspects. Then they had better just used the (strong) premise and fill out the story with a bunch of new characters. Anyway, as a movie of its own right it's fine enough. Here Ripley is a very self-confident, ruthless and charming con-man who sets up a smart scheme of fraud and murder and wriggles his way into the bed and the wealth of a beautiful woman. The pace is fast, the movie has a very modern and metropolitan (London!) feel and besides action and suspense also lots of humor (which is definitely NOT Highsmithian, or it would be her macabre sense of dark humor). Maybe that could have used some better editing, at times it's almost too much of a comedy (like the scene where Tom has to clean the blood of two giant white poodles after a killing). The acting is overall very good, I especially liked Allan Cumming as the exasperated priggish gallery-owner, he's is really great and very funny in all of his scenes. Claire Forlani is beautiful, as is Jacinda Barrett as Heloïse. Wlliam Dafoe's name is prominently on the cover of the DVD, but he only has very limited screen-time and they didn't give him much to put his teeth in. Tom Wilkinson as the intelligent adversary of Tom Ripley did a fine job. Ian Hart was also fine as the misguided and abused Bernard, but I was so distracted by the idiotic hair-do they made him wear (a wig, I hope!) that it very much marred my enjoyment of his part. This leaves Barry Pepper as Tom Ripley. Now you wouldn't call him really handsome, but he has these remarkable features that are classical and rugged at the same time (an exciting combination!), he's charismatic, very physical, and plays the intelligent con-man with much flair and obvious fun. All in all: I liked it, not as a Highsmith, but as a fine and entertaining movie in its own right.

Enchorde Recap: Tom Ripley is struggling to get by as a actor in London. However, as his credentials are discovered as fake and he is kicked out. But his friend, Derwatt, a painter, has just made it big. But Derwatt's proposal goes wrong and Derwatt kills himself. His friends, all in need of money, decides that it would be best if Derwatt was still alive and sold his paintings. Or better yet, still produced new paintings. So they hide the body and starts an elaborate plot to keep Derwatt hidden, but alive. But a lie needs a lie to cover it up. And soon events spin out of control.Comments: It is unfortunately too clear that this is a (second) sequel that has lost budget and quality. The few effects are simply not good enough, but what is worse is that the story is not really believable or engaging. It's a little over the top, too many accidents or random events are just too convenient to Ripley and his games. And what might be the worst, Tom Ripley is hard to sympathize with. He lacks finesse and ingenuity, instead his answer are violence and murder to keep his lies covered up. It is not about false identities or a psychological game of hide and seek. It's a murder story gone wrong.And when you lose interest in the lead characters, the movie is normally in deep trouble. This is, which is unfortunate because I like the cast. Barry Pepper, Alan Cumming, Claire Forlani, Tom Wilkinson and Willem Defoe is all good and talented actors. Most of them normally do much better productions than this.5/10

jotix100 The theory that a dead painter's work will increase the value of his pictures, is at the center of the story. Contrary to what we might have thought, young star Derwatt, a man who seems to have arrived in the world of art in London, does not quite rate as having the clout to push prices up if he is not around anymore. Derwatt, who loves to drive at high speeds suffers a fatal accident right after his adoring fans have bought all his paintings.Tom Ripley, who is now living in London, shows no means of earning an income and faces eviction from his apartment. He runs with an arty crowd, that includes Derwatt, Bernard, an undiscovered, but talented painter on his own, gallery owner, Jeff Constant, and Cinthia, who seems to be a groupie into that scene. All of them have witnessed the accident and decide to have Bernard produce canvas as though they were Derwatt's ; after all, the guy can certainly imitate his friend's style to almost perfection.Enter Neil Murchisson, a collector of Derwatt's paintings. He has come to buy more for the museum in Ohio he represents. Since all the production is sold, Ripley and his friends decide to press Bernard into creating a few pictures imitating Derwatt. Murchisson, who insists in buying the next batch of pictures, pushes a check into Jeff's hands, who in turn is convinced by Tom Ripley to continue the charade, knowing no one will find out the deceit.Ripley, who has met the gorgeous Heloise Plisson at the opening, decides to follow her to France. Ripley, who comes into some money after the phony Derwatt's come into the market, decides he wants Heloise for himself. He is amazed by what he finds when he gets to France. Heloise, not only is gorgeous, but also she is immensely rich. Her father, who sees right through his daughter's friend, is powerless because the young woman is smitten from the start with Ripley, the gold digger."Ripley Under Ground", adapted from a Patricia Highsmith's novel, and directed by Roger Spottisgoode, doesn't quite have the punch that other, more successful films based on this character had achieved, most notably, in Rene Clement's "Purple Noon", and in Liliana Cavani's "Ripley's Game". Those earlier films have powerful and charismatic actors, Alain Delon, and John Malkovich, in the central role. Barry Pepper, an otherwise excellent actor, does what he can with his Tom Ripley, but doesn't quite pull it. "Ripley Under Ground" is by no means horrible, but it could have been better.The basic problem with the screenplay by W. Blake Herron and Donald Westlake, is that it never settles into either a crime story, or an Euro-thriller. The best thing in the film is the ensemble cast that was gathered for it. Alan Cumming does quite well with the straight part, of the ambitious art dealer. Jacinta Barrett plays Heloise with charm. Claire Forlini, Douglas Henshall, Tom Wilkinson, and Ian Hart do good work for the director. Willem Dafoe appears as the American art lover who falls prey to the ambitions of these assorted group under the guidance of Tom Ripley.There is an ironic twist at the conclusion of the film, which comes quite unexpectedly, but we had already sensed was a possibility.