Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Megamind To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

giorgos-grigoriou I randomly watched the movie in the TV,having no idea what i was going to see. Not bad but pretty fake at some point but even with the the cliché' of trying to be unpredictable,i enjoyed it.Tom Ripley with his friends are trying to hide the death of their talented painter-artist friend and make money out of his name pretending that he is alive but this isn't an easy job to do,Tom Ripley in his try to not be revealed is willing to do anything.....It is an average movie but it keeps your interest to watch it till the end,Barry Pepper's (Tom Ripley)acting was good and Claire Forlani(Cynthia) was the hottest in the movie,i enjoyed her sexy scenes and dialogs the most.So just fine to watch it but yet there is anything great to remember from the movie

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

rogersrj I was able to see a screening of White on White (which was called Ripley's Art) and was greatly surprised. Going into the film, I was thinking that it would be a very dark, serious film. However, the film is nothing like the first. This is much more of a dark comedy with some mystery aspects. If you liked the first film because it was so dark, then you probably will not like this film. Good performances from all the actors, but some of the lines were a little corny.Overall, I enjoyed the film, but many of the people at the screening said they did not enjoy it.