Never read the books or any past films on Ripley but.............

Well, I agree that it's beautiful.

I thought they did a good job of showing Tom looking different enough that Inspector Ravini would have believed Tom was different. Between the hair, the beard, the light, and the fact that Tom only ever gets close to Ravini once to shake his hand - yeah, I'll buy it. Andrew Scott also did a more "open" performance as Tom-with-Ravini. He seems friendly and a bit dumb, which would help the ruse.

As for the lack of photographs, I didn't mind with the newspapers. After all, I suspect that word had not yet reached Dickie's parents; nobody would have supplied any photos of Dickie to the journalists. The only time that I had to suspend my disbelief a bit was with Marge's article in the magazines. Of course, the investigation had been going on long enough that maybe Ravini never read them, but the idea that they only printed the from-behind shot of Dickie was a bit far-fetched. Then again, maybe Marge was saving all of her good shots for her own books. We see her being a bit of a bounder herself at the party, so it's possible she deliberately kept Dickie "mysterious" so when she published My Atrani and whatever "Dickie and Me" memoir she wrote, she'd have the best photos.

As to Tom's infiltration, Dickie was too trusting (we see this with the woman and the taxi) when it comes to his money and largess.

The clothes... I do wonder if Tom wasn't imagining/making up all of Dickie's attraction towards him. Dickie was strangely detached from Marge in many ways - they didn't sleep in the same house, for instance - and it's possible Dickie was actually closeted, maybe even from himself, and he kept Tom around on that basis.

Try seeing the other Ripley films and it will come full circle. First, see Purple Noon 1960 and many consider to be the best. This was the closest to the time period of the original work which was the ‘50s. Alain Delon as Ripley - it has a completely different take on Ripley’s motive in that he just wants to be Dickie and that includes being with Marge. The ending is completely different however much to the dismay of author Patricia Highsmith. Then watch Minghella’s version of the story where Matt Damon is completely the opposite of the Tom in Purple Noon. He wants to be Dickie in a different way - this one is more homoerotic. And then the brilliant forensic one by Steven Zaillian - where Ripley is the most maniacal of the three and the least likable. Dickie was more unsure of himself and really kind of lost. Dickie as played by Maurice Ronet in Purple Noon and Jude Law in 1994 movie are both alpha males who strut around and are abusive to Tom and Marge. In the third Ripley, Dickie was easy to manipulate. Photos were never in any of 3 movies or the book. Ripley gets away with everything. And there are more books after the original. He gets married in the one John Malkovich is in. He does get more paranoid but he’s always living the high life. I think with the flaws you mention - it’s best to sit back and watch him work. I knew going into it that he’s never caught so it was just amazing how he slides into various characters and is always at the right place and his story is believable all the while he just misses being found out. You get to watch a true psychopath work his magic.

To Ace Spade's points, I'll add that Ravini was likely tired after a long train ride, and what may have been many days of long hours working on the case. The odds of Ravini not recognizing Ripley were very small, but Highsmith wrote it that way intentionally. Whatever Ripley's talents were, ultimately it was sheer luck that saved him from prison. The book makes it much clearer because it gives us access to Ripley's inner thoughts: "He considered that he had been lucky beyond reason in escaping detection."