So, is Ripley worth watching? If you want one of the best-looking things on Netflix and you have patience for a slow, cold, deliberate thriller, yes. If you want pace and warmth, this will test you, and that split is the whole story of its reception. This is a spoiler-light look at how it landed, based on critic and audience reactions rather than a personal watch-through.
📌 Key Takeaways
- Critically admired, not universally: a Metacritic score of 76 (“generally favorable”) and broadly positive critic reviews, with a more divided audience.
- It’s a craft showcase: eight episodes, shot entirely in black and white by Robert Elswit, directed by Steven Zaillian, with Andrew Scott as Tom Ripley.
- The praise and the complaints agree on the facts and split on the verdict: it’s gorgeous and glacial. Whether that’s hypnotic or tedious depends on you.
This article is for: anyone deciding whether to start this eight-episode adaptation and wondering if its slow, arty reputation is a feature or a warning.
The Short Version of the Verdict
Ripley adapts Patricia Highsmith’s The Talented Mr. Ripley: Tom Ripley, a small-time con man, is hired to bring a wealthy man’s son home from Italy, and things curdle from there. Andrew Scott plays Ripley, and Steven Zaillian shoots the whole thing in stark black and white.
The consensus is that it’s a beautifully made, superbly acted, very slow piece of work. So is Ripley worth watching for you? If you love art-film craft and patient noir, yes. If you need momentum, probably not.
What Critics Praised
Andrew Scott. His cold, controlled Ripley is the anchor, and reviewers and viewers alike single out the performance even amid a strong supporting cast.
The look. This is the headline. Robert Elswit’s black-and-white cinematography got near-universal praise, and many critics called it one of the most beautiful things on television, full stop.
The control. Zaillian’s exacting, formal direction is treated as the point rather than a barrier by admirers, giving the whole series a precise, hypnotic rhythm.
The Common Complaints
It’s very slow. The single most common criticism is the glacial pace. Scenes linger, and the story takes its time in a way some viewers find tedious rather than tense.
It’s cold. The clinical, detached tone is deliberate, but it keeps you at arm’s length emotionally, which not everyone enjoys.
Do eight hours earn it? Some reviewers questioned whether the material, memorably told in the 1999 film in one sitting, needed eight hour-long episodes.
It polarizes. The gap between admirers and the more lukewarm audience is real. The same qualities one viewer calls mesmerizing another calls a slog.
Who Should Watch, and Who Might Bounce Off
Whether Ripley is worth watching hinges on how much you value style and patience.
Watch it if you love art-film aesthetics, patient character-driven noir, and exacting direction, and you’re happy to let a show cast a slow spell. If striking cinematography alone can carry you, this is a feast.
Bounce off if you want a brisk, emotionally warm, twisty thriller. The slow pace and cool detachment that critics admire are exactly what frustrates viewers who want momentum, and you may prefer the faster 1999 film.
The Bottom Line
Is Ripley worth watching? For fans of craft and patient noir, yes, and it’s arguably the best-looking series Netflix has made. For everyone else, it’s a genuine “depends”: stunning to look at, deliberately slow, and emotionally cool by design. Go in for the atmosphere and the performance rather than pace, and it rewards you. Want something quicker, and you’ll feel every minute. If measured, prestige limited series are your thing, the reviews below fit.
Sources
- Rotten Tomatoes — Ripley
- Metacritic — Ripley
- IGN — Ripley review
- IMDb — Ripley
- Toronto Guardian — Ripley review
- IndieWire — Dakota Fanning on Ripley
More guides on StreamDecoded: