After reading some of the reviews here, I'm dismayed by the people comparing this version of The Talented Mr. Ripley to "the original" 1999 movie-many who panned this version incidentally. The true original version is the 1955 novel by Patricia Highsmith, which I have read, re-read, and highly recommend, and the bar against which every subsequent adaptation should be measured. To its credit, the plot of this version tacks truer to the novel than the 1999 movie, although every adaptation, to include the original 1960 movie adaptation, Plein Soleil (Purple Noon), takes artistic license in putting their own spin on the story. I have enjoyed all 3 film adaptations for their distinctive takes on the original story. Anthony Minghella's 1999 version in glorious color was a visual feast and well acted by Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, and the brilliant Phillip Seymour Hoffman. That version emphasized the class differences and the envy for the kind of Bon vivant lifestyle personified by Dickie and desired by Tom. But this version, in stark, gorgeous black and white, was more psychological, took its time, and reminded me of one of Antonioni's B&W trilogy (L'Avventura, La Notte, & L'Eclisse). The prolonged scenes of Tom trying to dispose of Dickie's body and the dingy reminded me of Coen Brothers' black humor. But it's not quite as good as it could have been. Andrew Scott, as much as I like his acting, which is brilliant (Sherlock), is quite a bit older than Tom Ripley of the novel. Johnny Flynn was kind of an enigma. On the other hand Dakota Fanning as Marge was more like Marge of the novel and perfect. Eliot Sumner as Freddie Miles was a strange choice to say the least. It's not perfect, but the real star of this miniseries is the cinematography, which conveyed both the beauty and coldness of the original story. I didn't want to see a remake of the 1999 movie but rather a unique vision for the original story, and on that level this version succeeded for me.
