This movie has a lot going for it. I find that I evaluate some films by allowing the film to be essentially good, and adding praise for each positive attribute, while others I allow as essentially bad, or unnecessary films, and add harsh criticism for each flaw. Every film, though, in my opinion, has the need to justify it's own existance. And if a film can justify it's being made, then it is essentially a good film. I allow that this film is essentially good because I think that it justifies it's own existance. However, that does not mean that I liked the film a great deal, or that it is an excellent film. I mean only that it is essentially not a bad film.
So... What does The Talented Mr. Ripley have going for it? Philip Seymour Hoffman; Jude Law; Cate Blanchett; interesting premise; psycological thriller; good reviews.... What does it have to tear these down? A goofy title; Matt Damon; Gwyneth Paltrow.......*hmmm*
I first reviewed this film mere hours after having seen it and have been told that my review was, in a nutshell, immature and stupid. I don't put any stock in this, as people will write anything to make themselves feel superior to people who actually invest the time to post their opinions publicly, but I feel that it's time I reevaluate my previous ruling. Since this site is dedicated to Philip Seymour Hoffman, I will evaluate his work in this film first: Phil could not have had more than 10-15 minutes total screen-time and you will (hopefully) be as disappointed and saddened by his character's fate as I was. He was really good as a blue-blooder -- great car... I believe that Phil can be enjoyable in any film he appears in, even in such roles as this one and his role in Happiness. No matter the snottiness or repulsiveness of the character, Phil makes them human. As to the rest of the cast, Jude Law did not disappoint either. He has been one of my favorite young actors since I first saw him in Wilde. And now I've seen him in A.I. I am just hopelessly in love. Something I really liked about this movie was: The queen of the phony British accents -- Gwyneth Paltrow -- who wins Oscars for it -- is in a movie as her natural American self, surrounded by Aussies and Brits faking American accents (Cate and Jude). That is a beautiful thing. Jude Law is perfect. Unlike Liam Neeson, Jude should never feel any shame about being naked -- and I doubt that he does. He's perfect. Cate Blanchett is a tad disappointing. I really liked her in Elizabeth but she... well... you'll have to see it. And I mean that too. Her role was, apparently, not even in the original novel. And I am really tired of the girl-who-doesn't-really-have-a-clue as to what's really going on roles. It's such a cliche. She's a great actress, but the role is so limiting.
The plot is a bit convoluted -- it's hard to explain to your friends and family you know..? But it's not hard to follow. It's also much nicer than most double-identity movies where you KNOW they will eventually slip up and be the wrong person at the wrong time or with the wrong person. This is more interesting -- as Roger Ebert says -- because you're watching this amazing pathological lier come up with things off the top of his head -- and always the thing that will most benefit himself and his own ends. So it's not stupid like Mrs. Doubtfire. That is important. Tom Ripley is holding up a very fine veil over people's eyes and even when you think he's been found out, he hasn't been. Philip Baker Hall makes a small appearance in the I-thought-for-sure-he-was-found-out scene. Very nice.
Matt Damon. Well. He's not a terrible actor. He was better in this than he was in Rounders, I'll allow that. But in my opinion, he would do better to stick to comedies, like Dogma. He was GREAT in Dogma. Dogma was a great film. And Matt rocked in it. I guess that he didn't do too bad, and it was nice to see him attempting yet again to break stereotype.
All in all -- it is reccommended, but unless you're a very shallow person, expect to be ruminating about it for a while.
This page last updated July 22, 2002
