Ripley's Game | It was good to see an older yet fiercer Mr. Ripley!

Mr. Ripley! What character! He is one of the most underrated villains I can think of. Before writing about this particular movie, I need to share some context about this character, as well as information about his movies. First, Mr. Ripley is an elegant psychopath, but not like the character from American Psycho. Ripley is even-tempered, more stylish and I would say more hedonistic as well.

This character has a total of 5 novels written by Patricia Highsmith, of these 5 books the first 3 have been brought to the screen with the peculiarity that these films were each produced by different people, without the goal of putting together a trilogy. Of the 3 films, the one that is unquestionably the best of all is the first one, called The Talented Mr. Ripley. This movie has great actors such as Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and Philip Seymour Hoffman (an actor who was almost never the main actor but was always an excellent supporting actor).

In this first movie, based on the first book, we see Thomas Ripley in his younger version. He is a person with a lot of confidence in himself but little to no money, with desires to achieve success and become a member of the high society. In this sense, Ripley's situation is similar to the origins of Gatsby, before he managed to accumulate his great wealth. With the difference that Gatsby was driven for the love of a woman, and Ripley is only looking for his own personal improvement, and since he is a psychopath he is willing to pay any price.

In this first movie there are several scenes that are pure art. For those who have already seen this movie (and without saying any spoiler), they will surely remember a scene with Mr Ripley and Freddie that is like watching a master dance between 2 great actors. The scene I am writing about is this one, but I recommend not seeing it for those who have not seen this masterpiece because it contains a BIG spoiler.

But what makes Mr. Ripley such a peculiar character? simply the ingenuity he has to elaborate deceits, manipulations, to adapt quickly to unexpected situations to the point of managing himself in a seemingly natural way in unforeseeable and complicated circumstances. Ripley is an expert when it comes to executing several lies simultaneously without confusing himself and without raising suspicion in others. His low tone of voice and good manners make him seen as someone trustworthy, something that he takes full advantage of.

Then we have the second movie based on the second book. This movie is, in my opinion, the worst of all. The actor for this second film is Barry Pepper, the least known of the 3, and the film has some very exaggerated things, such as a female character who "casually" and "conveniently" appears asleep in several scenes.

I believe this production suffered from lack of talent and/or lack of budget because I think the plot had potential but the execution was not entirely good. To summarize the story, this time Ripley has the opportunity to begin falsifying works of art with the complicity of some close friends, and naturally, this ends up causing complications. The movie is not bad, but clearly it is the worst of the 3 and this Mr. Ripley seemed the least convincing of the 3 as well.

And finally, we have the third movie. John Malkovich does an excellent job as a mature and more experienced Thomas Ripley, the cast doesn't have as much talent as in the first one, but Malkovich is good enough for the experience to be satisfactory.

I don't know if it was by chance, but hearing Malkovich speaking calmly and softly reminded me a little of the Mr. Ripley played by Matt Damon. And as a curious note, I have to say that Malkovich and Philip Seymour Hoffman have practically the same voice, they sound extremely similar!

This Mr Ripley, unlike the one from the first film, is already rich and has the life he wants. He lives in a kind of palace and it is clear that he has learned a lot of things, especially when it comes to dealing with more serious crimes such as killing and defending himself from thugs. While in the first movie, what he usually did was to improvise in real-time in a masterly way and ultimately crossing his fingers so that everything went well, in this one he doesn't have to do it anymore, he is above that, he plays at another level well above the rest.

This story, instead of being about manipulation like the first 2, is about adjustments between mafias and murders. So the qualities shown by Ripley in this case are not focused on his ability to manipulate, but on his ability to defend himself and kill.

That's why here we see a Mr. Ripley a little more accustomed to seeing blood running, and with enough skills to deal with mafia thugs. From what I could see in the movies (I have not read the books), I think the second book had more potential than the third, but due to quality issues regarding the production the third film ended up being better, without surpassing the first one of course, that one is a masterpiece.

To clarify doubts, and as I mentioned at the beginning of the article, these films were each produced without relating to each other. The movie of the second book was released years after the third, but since chronologically in the world of Mr. Ripley the events of that movie happen before, I put that movie as if it were the second.