Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

The Devil All The Time starring handsome mens Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson and Sebastian Stan

Needs more nip shots.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7611 hours ago

It's like "How many closeted actors can we put in one movie?"

by Anonymousreply 108/13/2020

Not a big Pattinson fan but he looks gorgeous with floppy hair

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 208/13/2020

R1: More like how many mediocre actors can we put into one movie.

by Anonymousreply 308/13/2020

Crazy Adventures of a bunch of backwards rural whites ... I'll pass.

by Anonymousreply 408/13/2020

The book was great.

by Anonymousreply 508/13/2020

I've liked the director's other film so I'll give this a look.

by Anonymousreply 608/13/2020

The book was amazing and I’m excited about seeing this.

Hoping for maximum male nudity.

by Anonymousreply 708/13/2020

What will the nudity be in this?

by Anonymousreply 808/13/2020

R8, pole from Pattinson and hole from Holland and Stan.

by Anonymousreply 908/13/2020

I hope they don’t pull a Ryan Murphy Hollywood move. Release the trailer, expect a plethora of butts, and then nada in the final product.

by Anonymousreply 1008/13/2020

Will SebStan show off his wide nipples?

by Anonymousreply 1108/13/2020

Is little Tom Holland storing cotton balls in his mouth? Ugly mouth area.

by Anonymousreply 1208/13/2020

Ain't there no real native-born men actors around to play 1940s Deplorables?

by Anonymousreply 1308/13/2020

Who the director?

by Anonymousreply 1408/13/2020

Antonio Campos is the director, he made the terrific Christine with Rebecca Hall a couple of years ago about that broad who blew her head off on live TV -- that's a fucking great movie

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1508/13/2020

Tom Holland and Seb Stan need to have a nip-off.

by Anonymousreply 1608/13/2020

3-minute trailer feels like an eternity. What a lame, disjointed trailer!!!!

And who stole Tom Holland's lips?

by Anonymousreply 1708/13/2020

They'd have to be idiots to not have Holland do a nude scene in this. He's been wanting to do one pretty much ever since he started out as Spider-Man, and this could give him the opportunity. And having your movie include a nude scene from Tom Holland, who is one of the current it-boys, would make their movie stay at the #1 ranking on Netflix for months.

by Anonymousreply 1808/14/2020

R18 I'm only watching this film because of the director's previous films. I really don't want to be exposed to Tom Hollands private parts under any circumstances. If he does have full frontal nudity Netflix should provide a pixelated option for those like me who just don't want to see it.

by Anonymousreply 1908/14/2020

R18 = The Onion's Peter K. Rosenthal

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2008/14/2020

I didn't know anything about the book that this film is based on, so I looked up the plot (which will not be discussed in this post.)

There are a lot of evil characters in the story, and part of it takes place in Ohio.

There's a character in the book, Theodore, described as a gay, pedophile, serial killer (The GLAAD Trifecta!). So how will this be handled in the movie, I wondered? I looked up the cast in IMDB and found a list of all the characters, but could find no listing for someone playing Theodore. Did they change the character name or drop the character from the film? Maybe someone knows.

It's interesting that Mia Wasikowska (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) is in the film. We don't see her in any popular TV or movies anymore.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2108/14/2020

That video at r20 is hysterical. That guy has to be a Datalounger.

by Anonymousreply 2208/14/2020

Tom Holland is really a beautiful young man. I'm glad he's normal sized (5'8") so he can have a decent career--many male actors who start in childhood or adolescence are extremely short in adulthood.

by Anonymousreply 2308/14/2020

[quote] It's interesting that Mia Wasikowska (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) is in the film. We don't see her in any popular TV or movies anymore.

Not since about 2016. I think the last big blockbuster she did was "Crimson Peak"--she seems to have purposefully moved towards smaller independent films.

by Anonymousreply 2408/14/2020

[quote] I really don't want to be exposed to Tom Hollands private parts under any circumstances. If he does have full frontal nudity Netflix should provide a pixelated option for those like me who just don't want to see it.

Mary, you are such a delicate flower and must be protected!

by Anonymousreply 2508/14/2020

Agreed R25. If this film doesn't have at least 45 minutes of full frontal, I'm out.

by Anonymousreply 2608/14/2020

The whole movie should just be Bill Skasgard, Sebastian Stan, Jason Clarke, and Tom Holland getting pounded. Everything else is secondary.

by Anonymousreply 2708/14/2020

I very badly need to see Bill Skarsgård fucking Tom Holland whilst Rob Pattinson watches. When will Hollywood finally give the audience what it wants?

by Anonymousreply 2808/14/2020

Bill Skasgard, Sebastian Stan, Jason Clarke, Tom Holland and Robert Pattinson - all of them would be intact, right?


by Anonymousreply 2908/14/2020

It's a "4SkinPalooza"!

by Anonymousreply 3008/14/2020

I'm still surprised Hollywood had so much stuff in the can pre Covid.

by Anonymousreply 3108/14/2020

The Devil All The Time debuts on Netflix on Sept. 16th.

How are the reviews (each line is from a different review)?

What we expected when they cast Mia:

[quote] “The film’s most stirring turns come from two young and gifted actresses (Mia Wasikowska and Eliza Scanlen) handed barely more than 10 minutes of screen time apiece.”

How did Robert Pattinson, The New Batman, do here:

[quote] “Pattinson’s turn as pedophile preacher Preston Teagardin is the obvious highlight.”

[quote] “Pattinson delivers another striking, film-stealing supporting turn with a hear-it-to-believe-it high-pitched Southern twang.”

[quote] “I don’t really know what he’s doing here, besides taking a little too long with every line reading.”

Tom Holland, they love him, they don't love him:

[quote] “Holland is perfectly withdrawn and quiet for so much of the film that when he is driven to action, it’s shocking and unexpected. He’s a combination of angst, guilt and barely contained rage.”

[quote] “Holland, sadly, doesn’t impress…[he] just isn’t right for this role. He seems too fresh, too clean to play such a haunted, violent character.”

Other observations:

[quote] “A film that often feels like a sort of young actors’ Olympics; a baroque showcase for Gen-Z refugees of the industry’s biggest franchises to showcase their indie bona fides.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3209/13/2020

Anybody seen it yet? Any Tom Holland nudity?

by Anonymousreply 33Last Tuesday at 7:57 PM

Reviews keep talking about the "graphic nudity" but I'm assuming if it was one of the stars or someone as big as Holland we'd have heard about it by now. My guess is it's naked unnamed corpses.

by Anonymousreply 34Last Tuesday at 8:20 PM

Ugh, I just cannot comprehend that some people find Robert Pattinson handsome. I find him really difficult to look at. He reminds me of a raccoon and I don't know why.

by Anonymousreply 35Last Wednesday at 6:17 AM

The book is amazing. Probably the best novel of the last decade.

by Anonymousreply 36Last Wednesday at 6:25 AM

Having seen some pics of men you find attractive, r35, I'm not surprised.

by Anonymousreply 37Last Wednesday at 6:29 AM

I’m about halfway though it. It’s well suited for a Netflix because it’s a very slow burn.

by Anonymousreply 38Last Wednesday at 8:37 AM

I finished it. It's good but not fantastic. The ghost of the Coen Bros. haunts every frame but at the same time it lacks the kind of myth-telling quality of the Bros.' best neo-noirs. The story is told and it just sort of sits there once it's over.

As far as performances, everyone is very good but only possible awards worthy one is maybe Bill Skarsgard.

by Anonymousreply 39Last Wednesday at 12:31 PM

Hollywood loves having British actors put on a southern accent.

by Anonymousreply 40Last Wednesday at 12:36 PM

Hollywood loves paying British actors far less than they'd have to pay American actors.

by Anonymousreply 41Last Wednesday at 12:45 PM

This is a very special year, 'cause everybody's performance is now award-worthy.

by Anonymousreply 42Last Wednesday at 4:44 PM

My daddy, he was fightin' The Devil All The Time.

by Anonymousreply 43Last Wednesday at 4:47 PM

Theodore, the disabled homosexual, pedophile, serial killer is played by an actor whose name is Pokey LaFarge.

by Anonymousreply 44Last Wednesday at 4:50 PM

NO nudity. But I enjoyed it that everyone was white in this film. Sorta refreshing, for a change.

by Anonymousreply 45Last Wednesday at 7:46 PM

So who is the narrator in this movie?

by Anonymousreply 46Last Thursday at 10:26 AM

The author of the book.

by Anonymousreply 47Last Thursday at 10:36 AM

R47 No, not who actually did it, but within the story who is supposed to be narrating and doing this voice over? What character or other worldly omniscient being? Was that in the novel? What is their role? Was it added after the fact to try to help make sense of the desperate threads of this story? What is the added value?

by Anonymousreply 48Last Thursday at 10:53 AM

The book has a third person narrator like most books have narrators.

by Anonymousreply 49Last Thursday at 11:17 AM

I disliked it and found it pointlessly grimmer than grim. Feels very cynical. Was Pattison awful or was the character so disgusting no amount of acting could convince you to spend a minute with the performance?

by Anonymousreply 50Last Thursday at 5:10 PM

It really was a one dimensional role, I’m surprised Pattinson took it.

by Anonymousreply 51Last Thursday at 5:24 PM

The CGI of the spiders was really poor.

I just found it all really dull, which given the content is pretty disappointing.

by Anonymousreply 52Last Thursday at 5:29 PM

This is such a good movie. I think it's one of the best movies I've ever seen on Netflix. It's so dark. It's really a horror movie to me.

by Anonymousreply 53Last Thursday at 5:31 PM

Huh, probably should've googled it first, they claim the spiders were real. If so, it's a shame as they didn't look it, there seemed to be some Cats-style floating going on with some of them.

by Anonymousreply 54Last Thursday at 5:32 PM

Why are grown men lusting over a plain looking, pale, little 13 year old boy? It's creepy.

by Anonymousreply 55Last Thursday at 5:38 PM

[quote] But I enjoyed it that everyone was white in this film. Sorta refreshing, for a change.

I don't know. I would have personally loved it if Angela Bassett or Regina King showed up with a rifle and killed all the evil, stupid characters, and even fired a few stray shots at Tom Holland's character as he ran for the hills and obscurity.

by Anonymousreply 56Last Thursday at 5:39 PM

I guess they stopped hiring American actors to play American characters. That's really stupid.

by Anonymousreply 57Last Thursday at 5:41 PM

Must be weird but I really liked it. Something different.

by Anonymousreply 58Last Thursday at 5:41 PM

r23 He's actually just under 5'6".

by Anonymousreply 59Last Thursday at 5:42 PM

R57 On that topic - does anyone know if non-American actors have to join SAG to act in American films/television shows, or if they have reciprocal membership deals with their native unions?

by Anonymousreply 60Last Thursday at 5:42 PM

All in all it seemed like there was a lot of potential with the cast and the amazing setting and cinematography. But I’m really lost on what ultimately was the point of it?

by Anonymousreply 61Last Thursday at 5:43 PM

I'm not sure why they didn't have any American actors. They did the same thing with the Dark Knight.

by Anonymousreply 62Last Thursday at 5:43 PM

R62 American actors are more expensive. At least with the Dark Knight they had a plausible excuse that a lot of it was filmed in Britain, but this was all shot in Alabama which makes the choice even odder.

I didn't realise Jake Gyllenhaal was a producer. That explains Holland being cast I guess.

by Anonymousreply 63Last Thursday at 5:48 PM

R63 = idiot

British actors are only less expensive if they shoot in BRITAIN and if they are UNKNOWN

And The Dark Knight was filmed in Chicago!

R63 = too stupid to live. Probably a Trump voter too.

by Anonymousreply 64Last Thursday at 6:03 PM

R64 It was filmed in Chicago and London. You'll note I said a lot of it, not all of it.

And no, it's not just unknowns. A number of actors and others within the industry have commented on it.

Your over-reaction to my post is simply bizarre, not to mention for some reason bringing Trump into it. I can only assume you're an offended Holland fangirl.

by Anonymousreply 65Last Thursday at 6:18 PM

I must not have been watching closely enough. Was the boy getting raped by the bullies?

by Anonymousreply 66Last Friday at 1:45 AM

The spiders were 100% CGI and it was really poorly done.

Tom didn’t even get shirtless :(

by Anonymousreply 67Last Friday at 11:16 PM

What a waste to have such a hot cast and to have literally none of them get naked despite the fact that three out of four of them have displayed both hole and pole on screen before and would readily do it again.

Reviews are tearing it apart. Good. Netflix deserves it for fucking us over.

by Anonymousreply 68Last Saturday at 12:43 PM

[quote]I'm not sure why they didn't have any American actors.

Haley Bennett, Riley Keough, and other supporting cast like the grandmother and the preacher's brother.

People go with who they know. The screenwriter/director is friends with Pattinson and gave him the script telling him to take any role he wanted, he knew Mia from a film he produced, knew Tom through Tom's agent and was impressed by his work in "The Impossible", he was a fan of Jason Clarke and wanted to work with him. Chris Evans originally had the Sebastian Stan role, but he dropped out due to a scheduling issue.

by Anonymousreply 69a day ago

Thank god Stan took the role instead of Evans. Evans can't act for shit, despite how he keeps trying to market himself as a "serious artiste". He would have ruined the movie, there's a reason why he can never get any roles beyond action heroes and rom-coms.

by Anonymousreply 7020 hours ago

I'm a little over an hour in. Does any sort of plot ever come together? It feels like a bunch of disjointed time jumps so far.

By graphic nudity, did they mean the photos Sandy was looking at in the motel room?

by Anonymousreply 7113 hours ago

I gave up midway through. It was just a big mix of Southern Gothic mess. I had no idea why the characters behaved so crazily--they just did, for no reason.

I'm amazed the novel that forms the original source material is so highly rated.

by Anonymousreply 7213 hours ago

[quote] I really don't want to be exposed to Tom Hollands private parts under any circumstances. If he does have full frontal nudity Netflix should provide a pixelated option for those like me who just don't want to see it.


by Anonymousreply 7313 hours ago

What a steaming pile of dog doodoo.

by Anonymousreply 7412 hours ago

[quote]If he does have full frontal nudity Netflix should provide a pixelated option for those like me who just don't want to see it.

Judging by the lack of a bulge in the Spiderman suit, it wouldn't take many pixels.

by Anonymousreply 7512 hours ago

Looking back a few days to when I watched it, I concur R74. This was a turd and a pretty nasty one.

by Anonymousreply 7611 hours ago
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!