THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY
I frequently twist my son's arm to go with me to an early show. We normally seat one seat apart. As the show progresses, if the movie is boring me I lean hard across the empty seat and whisper in his ear, more or less after the priest's sick mother in THE EXORCIST: `Son, why you do this to me? Why you brought me here?'
or
Have you ever received a trivial present that is beautifully wrapped? Italy is a spectacular place to photograph.
or
a well directed movie does not have to be good.
At The Talented Mr. Ripley I watched a shipping tycoon engage a poor young man to go to Italy to persuade his son to return to New York. Then I watched the young man stage the circumstances of his meeting with the mark and his girl friend, and then I watched them be rich and lazy and grow friendly. In the process I watched the poor young man share and get to like the good life, conspiring with the rich playboy to deceive the father while not fully acknowledging his deceptions to the son. Fill in a few similarly pedestrian details and that is not a synopsis but all that happens in this movie for about an hour. Fascinating? Hardly. Son, why you do this to me?
The plot of The Talented Mr. Ripley is standard murder-followed-by-assumed-identity fare with the usual hazards of inquiring police and navigating between identities to avoid the usual contrived perils. Of course in order to give novelist Patricia Highsmith a plot for 5 books and director Anthony Minghella a movie, the character stupidly stays within reach of all who knew one or the other of his identities and they keep bumping into him at inconvenient times. Yawn.
One of the reasons why the movie fails as intelligent entertainment is that this kind of deception would be impossible to maintain while functioning in the environment of the previous identity; and the resort to serial killings does not overcome the objection. The plot is predicated on a transparent contrivance which is unimaginative and unoriginal to boot, therefore reducing the movie to ordinary, forgettable fare. Why you do this to me?
Matt Damon manages to get some measure of your support for his nefarious plots, which means that he did a competent job of playing his part. A little more make-up for the close-ups might have helped to conceal his bad facial skin. Gwyneth Paltrow was lovely as ever. Although her part was paltry (ouch!) she had two strong scenes which were the acting highlights of the movie. Cate Blanchett's acting skills were pretty much wasted in a smallish part, although she did a conscientious job of getting into the mental set of her character. The part of an irresponsible rich playboy is well played by Jude Law, except for the fact that when the Paltrow character tells us that he was also charismatic we just have to take her on faith, which according to the apostle Paul is the manifestation of things not seen.
Did I wonder sometimes how the writer would get him out of one or another predicament? Of course; am I not human? Do I not bleed if you cut me? They did throw me some bones, but not the Monaco cut. Nor the New York strip for that matter.
A 2 star movie which is well photographed and well directed deserves another 1/2 star (out of 5).
Jerry Bosch gbp@d-g-s.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews