Although it appears late in the story, Rome has always symbolized a pivotal moment in the transformation of Tom Ripley, the morally ambiguous con man from Patricia Highsmith’s classic novel. Sent from New York to Italy’s Amalfi Coast to retrieve the wayward son of a wealthy shipping magnate, Tom becomes enamored with the luxurious lifestyle his target effortlessly enjoys. To maintain the high life he has grown to love, Tom eventually resorts to murder, unwilling to give up the luxury he has come to crave.
So, when the opportunity to visit the Eternal City for a short trip came up, much like Tom Ripley’s craving for freedom — not just from fridges on my part but also the nine-to-five rat race— sans the murderous streak, I packed my two shorts — who even thinks of shorts in freezing London — and flew off with my better half for what I envisioned to be a memorable trip. And while it was unforgettable, yet as I melted under the unforgiving August sun or ran over baked cobbled stones, I was reminded yet again of Tom Ripley and the varying emotions he evokes in people.
Case in point is my wife, who had broken one of her golden rules: not to watch anything in black and white. While impervious to my pleas to watch the new adaptation of the titular character, she had finally capitulated to the praises of her co-workers, something I never failed to bring up as we slurped melting gelato in between our walks over the city Tom Ripley had made famous, at least for both of us.
While she appreciated some aspects of Steve Zallian’s Ripley, she was still unequivocal in her preference for the 1999 version starring Mat Damon, Jude Law, and Gwenyth Paltrow. She found it difficult to connect the older-looking new version of Tom Ripley with the one in her mind. And as someone who’s been married long enough not to let his eyesight be affected by the honeymoon haze, I will say this: if there’s one thing we hate more than being proved wrong, it’s for our ‘better halves’ to be correct. So, putting my prized nap time aside, I took a deep dive into the two versions for the sake of husbands everywhere.
And here’s what I found:
In the Talented Mr. Ripley (hereafter to be mentioned as Ripley’99), we meet a very young Tom, still in the process of finding himself. He’s doing odd jobs, living a shitty life, trying to make ends meet. In Ripley (Ripley’24 from here on), Tom is more set in his devious ways. While his life is still shitty and bleak, he’s set in his ways of forging checks and impersonating people. And yet, it’s Ripley’99 who sets off on the path of deceit from the start, doing his homework on the kind of jazz music preferred by Dickie to win him over. This is perhaps a much earlier-than-usual peek into his psyche, given the limited run-time of the movie. Ripley’24 starts more genuine, at least on the surface. Thus, there is a departure in both depictions of the same character right from the start. Ripley’99 Tom is younger and more extroverted in the sense that we’re allowed to see what he’s thinking. He smiles more and is not averse to laughing at his own mistakes. The Tom we see in Ripley’24 is more of a finished product, sure of himself, more opaque, and not open to others. Thus, as a viewer, while the movie version of Ripley evolves right before our eyes, we’re following the breadcrumbs left by Ripley’24 as he’s always a step ahead, never unsettled by any situation, never taking off his mask.
One notable difference between Ripley and The Talented Mr. Ripley is the absence of certain supporting characters in the 2024 limited series. Cate Blanchett’s character of Meredith Logue in Ripley’99 was neither in the novel nor in Ripley’24. Director Anthony Minghella created her to increase the tension and complicate Tom’s web of deception. In the film, Meredith mistakenly befriends Tom, believing him to be Dickie, and eventually falls for Dickie by the film’s end. In Ripley’99, it is when Meredith is introduced that we see Tom slipping into Dickie’s identity for the first time, once again showing how it was always his plan to deceive.
In Ripley’24, Tom starts off with almost a genuine desire to help. Granted, he is also running from the law in New York, but the idea of forging Dickie’s identity is borne not out of covetousness but the sense of freedom that wealth and privilege bring.
In both versions, Tom builds up trust by being honest and upfront about how he’s been sent by Dickie’s father to coax him to return. But that’s as far as the similarities go. In Ripley’99, Dickie is shown as somewhat of a Casanova who cheats on his girlfriend and does not show any interest in Tom. It’s Marge who’s more open and welcoming to Ripley. Dakota Fanning’s Marge in Ripley’24 sees Tom for what he is right from the start: a parasite. How both versions of Marge change their perception of Tom is a fair barometer for both adaptations’ direction. Paltrow’s Marge ends up suspecting Tom of killing Dickie, while Dakota’s version in Ripley almost becomes friends with Tom by the end. What remains constant in both versions is Tom’s rivalry with both versions of Marge for Dickie’s affection and attention. If anything, both depictions of Marge and their gradual evolution point to how Tom’s chameleon-like changing self-serving qualities induce different reactions over time.
I won’t go into how Tom meets Dickie for the first time in the fictional town of Mongi in Ripley’99 as opposed to the very real Atrani on the Amalfi coast. Or how one prefers dazzling colors to build up a sense of vivaciousness and life while the other chooses black and white to evoke a grim, dark, and sinister feel. Those are the personal choices of the director and the way they want to tell the story. I can see the positives in both versions.
Coming to the really meaty stuff now, the dynamics of the relationship between Tom and Dickie. Giving credit where it’s due, I quite liked how Damon and Jude bonded over a shared love for Jazz in Ripley’99. In the more recent version, we see a more subdued Dickie, who is almost apologetic in the way he lets Tom walk all over him. He’s shown as a more passive co-pilot in their relationship; thus, you almost feel sorry for how he dies. In Ripley’99, while Damon kills him, Dickie is no angel himself, so his eventual death almost seems predestined. It’s almost like karma. It’s Jude Law’s Dickie who almost goads Tom into a violent reaction, and we see him being remorseful afterward. In Ripley’24, while there’s no buildup, the murder, once it occurs, is almost devoid of emotion or remorse, showing once again a more below-the-surface and deeper Tom who keeps his cards close to the chest. In both versions, it’s Tom’s obsession with Dickie that puts a strain on their relationship. It’s like the ingredients in both versions are the same; it’s only at what stage of the process they’re introduced that gives the two movies distinctly different flavors.
The portrayal of Freddie Miles differs significantly between the two Ripley adaptations. In the 1999 film, Freddie, played by the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, is depicted as a carefree aristocrat, going with the younger vibe of the film and much like Jude Law’s version of Dickie, encouraging Dickie’s reckless behavior. Hoffman’s Freddie is bold and brash, while in Ripley’24, Elliot Sumner’s portrayal is more subdued, with an artistic edge. Despite these differences, both versions share a sense of wariness and immediate suspicion toward Tom. In both adaptations, Tom harbors a strong dislike for Freddie and eventually kills him to prevent his exposure. Hoffman’s Freddie is killed with a sculpture, while Sumner’s Freddie, staying closer to the book, is bludgeoned with a glass ashtray.
Another character added to the 1999 adaptation was Peter Smith-Kingsley, played by Jack Davenport. Peter, who is close to Dickie and Marge, helps Marge deal with Dickie’s sudden disappearance. Like Meredith, Peter was not in Highsmith’s 1955 novel and was introduced in the film to reveal Tom’s hidden sexuality, suggesting that Tom harbored romantic feelings for Dickie, which adds a new dimension to his motivation for murdering him. The question of Tom’s sexuality is only hinted at but never addressed in Ripley’24 when Dickie catches Tom wearing his clothes. Dickie clarifies that he’s not queer, and that’s pretty much that. In Ripley’99, the sexual angle is more open when Tom plays chess with Dickie in the bathtub and again when Damon is caught peeking by Freddie. Irrespective of how much emphasis is put, both versions converge at the boat murder scene. In Ripley’99, Tom turns violent after seeing his confession of love rejected and ridiculed. While in Ripley’24, there’s almost no hint of what’s coming as Tom kills Dickie without being provoked. It’s a more calculated move that stays true to Tom’s ethos, which we’ve been shown so far.
I won’t go any further, as this is the culmination of Tom’s metamorphosis into Ripley, and what follows is a twisted and intricate journey filled with deception, fraud, and murder. So, which one is better? And more importantly, was my better half right about Tom? Well, yes and no — back me up here, guys; it pays to be diplomatic; you don’t want to end up on the couch just over a fictional character.
Here’s what I have to say:
Regarding staying true to the source material, Ripley ’24 is a highly faithful adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s renowned novel The Talented Mr. Ripley, staying more faithful to the original novel than any previous screen version of this iconic crime drama.
In Ripley’99, Tom is portrayed as naive, yet cunning, and charming yet cold, driven by more relatable ambitions compared to the calculated and menacing version of Tom in Ripley’24. Matt Damon’s portrayal of Tom exudes youthful optimism, with his desires centered on achieving wealth, gaining influential friends, and living an extraordinary life—aspirations many can identify with. In contrast, Tom in Ripley’24 is far more sinister, depicted as a cold, methodical figure, almost inhuman, and best described as an evil parasite.
In Ripley ’24, Scott’s portrayal of Tom returns to the character’s core, emphasizing a craving for freedom—the ability to move through life without the burdens of daily survival that plague the poor. Though he will constantly be watching his back, especially as his criminal activities continue in the book sequels, he deems it a small price to pay for a life of leisure.
And while he achieves it through deceit, lies, and even murder, lesser beings, like you and I can hope for happiness and contentment by keeping our mouths shut even when we disagree and just thanking our lucky stars that we have someone in our lives.
What did you think of Netflix’s Ripley? Which version is your favorite? Let me know.
