Critics’ reviews

RIPLEY (2024)

18 reviews from 18 publications. Critics’ score 72: 12 positive, 2 mixed, 4 negative.

Back to our review of RIPLEY

72
Positive
12
Mixed
2
Negative
4
IndieWire
4 April 2024 · Ben Travers
90*

The critic praises Zaillian's black-and-white adaptation for its hypnotic storytelling and exquisite cinematography that shades the tale of a deplorable killer. Andrew Scott's striking performance pulls off its own 'talented' twist on the material.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
4 April 2024 · A- · Matt Schimkowitz
90

The review calls it the best Talented Mr. Ripley adaptation yet, with Zaillian, Scott, and cinematographer Robert Elswit delivering a masterful, textured take faithful to Highsmith. Scott's quiet, unassuming terror as Ripley stands out amid striking black-and-white photography and purposeful direction.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
4 April 2024 · Lucy Mangan
90*

This scintillating noirish adaptation leaves the 1999 film in the shade, thanks to Andrew Scott's mesmerising performance as a wellspring of possibilities. The black-and-white photography is gorgeous, the slow pace builds exquisite tension, and the supporting cast is excellent.

Read the full review →
Vulture
4 April 2024
90*

The critic finds the remorseless, monochromatic series a deliciously mean adaptation anchored by Andrew Scott's phenomenal performance. It sneers at the upper class with complicated aims, immersive cinematography, and a mercurial spirit that rejects previous adaptations' moral framing.

Read the full review →
The i Paper
4 April 2024 · Ed Power
85*

The critic praises Andrew Scott’s twitchy, anxious and brilliant performance as a world-weary, ruthless Ripley in this bleakly dazzling black-and-white adaptation. Zaillian’s meditative direction and the stark Italian setting provide a perfect platform for Scott to embody the character he was born to play.

Read the full review →
The Times
3 April 2024
85*

This monochrome adaptation is a stunning Hitchcockian work of art with stark perfectionism; the slow, hypnotic pace and Caravaggio-like use of light make it cinematic and compelling once the black-and-white style is accepted.

Read the full review →
Empire
4 April 2024 · John Nugent
80*

The critic highlights the series’ severe, stunning black-and-white cinematography and Andrew Scott’s cold-blooded, psychopathic Ripley as a fresh, darker take on the material. Zaillian’s ambitious, exquisitely crafted noir is rare on television despite its gloomy tone.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
4 April 2024 · ★★★★ · Lewis Knight
80

The critic calls it a gorgeous, unnerving slow-burn thriller that stretches suspense across eight episodes with stunning black-and-white visuals. Scott’s quietly venomous, scary Ripley and Fanning’s intelligent Marge stand out, though the lack of chemistry between Scott and Flynn is a minor downside.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
4 April 2024 · Daniel Fienberg
80*

The critic calls it another strong adaptation with breathtaking black-and-white photography and a complex, unsteady Scott performance that blends fragility and cunning. Zaillian’s slower, methodical approach creates a rapturously pretty, propulsive descent into murky morality, frequently leavened by humor.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
4 April 2024
65*

Andrew Scott is magnificent as Ripley with a flawless accent and top performance, but the rest of the cast falls short of the 1999 original and the series is gorgeous yet not as good overall.

Read the full review →
The Independent
4 April 2024
40*

The breathtaking black-and-white visuals and tense extended scenes are decent, but the series falters due to Andrew Scott feeling all wrong as an overt ghoul rather than a charming social climber, haunted by the 1999 film's cast.

Read the full review →
The Telegraph
4 April 2024 · ★★ · Anita Singh
40

Andrew Scott is great but the only smart decision; the brooding black-and-white series is dull and deadening compared to the sun-drenched 1999 film, with listless supporting performances.

Read the full review →
Variety
4 April 2024 · Aramide Tinubu
35*

The critic finds the series aesthetically pleasing but narratively arduous, with an utterly charmless Scott as a grating, sociopathic grifter who lacks the seduction of prior versions. Overlong episodes and a lack of depth in the characters make it stilted and unengaging rather than enticing.

Read the full review →
Collider
4 April 2024 · Remus Noronha
90*

The critic highlights Andrew Scott's nuanced, career-best performance and the stunning black-and-white cinematography drawing from Caravaggio and classic cinema. Some plot threads remain unresolved, but the series is near-perfect overall.

Read the full review →
Consequence
4 April 2024 · B+
83

The critic lauds the sumptuous black-and-white visuals and Andrew Scott's ideal casting as Ripley. The main flaw is the overly slow pacing that drags especially in the early episodes.

Read the full review →
/Film
4 April 2024 · 7/10 · Chris Evangelista
70

The critic praises the stylish black-and-white cinematography and Andrew Scott's calculating, almost inhuman performance as Ripley. The story feels lopsided and runs out of steam after the central crimes, struggling to fill eight episodes.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
8 April 2024 · Rosie Fletcher
50*

The review describes the noir adaptation as dark and stormy but not always in a good way, a dour slog over eight episodes despite strong performances. Scott's Ripley impresses as a murderous psychopath, though the series lacks fun and can feel like too much cat-and-mousing for those familiar with the story.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
4 April 2024 · Rebecca Cook
40*

The critic argues the series fails to capture the magic of the 1999 film, with baffling stylistic choices like black-and-white and slow pacing that make it occasionally boring. Solid performances are undermined by the lack of color, escapism, and the seductive allure of prior adaptations.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate