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

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

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

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

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

The book was great.

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

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

Hoping for maximum male nudity.

What will the nudity be in this?

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

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.

Will SebStan show off his wide nipples?

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

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

Who the director?

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

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

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

And who stole Tom Holland's lips?

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.

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.

R18 = The Onion's Peter K. Rosenthal

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.

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

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.

[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.

[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!

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

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

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?

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

YUMMY!!!

It's a "4SkinPalooza"!

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

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.”

Anybody seen it yet? Any Tom Holland nudity?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Hollywood loves having British actors put on a southern accent.

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

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

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

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

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

So who is the narrator in this movie?

The author of the book.

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?

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

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?

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

The CGI of the spiders was really poor.

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

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Tom didn’t even get shirtless :(

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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

[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!

What a steaming pile of dog doodoo.

[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.

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

The "graphic nudity" gimmick was a way to trick viewers into thinking they'd be getting to see Tom Holland drop his boxers. They knew what they were doing. Glad to see it blew up in their face and that it's getting torn apart in reviews.

Some of the actors are fine in this movie but the movie is bad, and very cynical filmmaking.

It's a weird weird cast.

I didn't read the novel yet, but for some reason i thought it was very american and curiously there's not a single american actor as main character

The graphic nudity are some manipulated photographs someone looks through at the end of the movie. The effects that are use on them make it so you don't even see that actual flesh in the photos.

I've seen a lot of praise for the book online. Unless the movie completely butchered the book, I don't understand the praise. The entire plot seemed to be several different people do bad things, some told in flashbacks, the end.

R80 It's a cult novel. Pollock had a lot of devote following since Knockemstiff. But generally people describe his writting as brutal, so it's not for everyone

I saw it last evening. It was a pastiche of tired Appalachian stereotypes with inconsistent accents with some of the actors slipping vowels to their native voice. I was waiting for someone to play a banjo. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the source material, it was predictable it was going to be a ‘last man standing Appalachian justice’ plot just part way in. It relied heavily on shock violence and the gore factor. It should have been a better film as it has good cinematography and cast.

I always like seeing Jason Clarke. There’s something really appealing about him....very unconventionally hot and a big man. He gets steady work and will have a long career.

best movie ive seen in long time. some hot men in it....yep

How was Skarsgård?

he and tom are HOT as fuk......fun movie, very good!!!! (sexy

R84 He only had a small role and didn't have much to do. Actually all the roles apart from Tom Holland's are rather small and Holland doesn't even appear in the film until about 45 minutes into it's running time.

Horrible film in every respect though the only thing of interest was it was actually shot in 35mm which is rare these days and particularly for a film that is primarily made for a streaming platform. I noticed whilst watching it that it looked more like film and imdb.com confirmed that I thought - it was shot on film.

Dreadful film though. Nobody comes out of it looking good.

horrible film.

It's absolutely horrible. Had to turn it off after 30 minutes. Endless violence and suffering involving dirt-poor deplorables. And they shoot a fucking dog - assholes.

For those of you that read the book are their long sections where the male characters are nude? All the talk above makes me think it must be integral to the plot.

R88 Good thing you turned it off then, they go on to crucify the dog and leave it to rot until a decade later when its bones are at last buried.

R86 About all the roles being small, it seemed like there was this revolving nature that after a certain amount of time a new actor would be switched in for a while like an alternate in a sports team. Nobody seemed to get the time they deserved on screen to really make a fully released character, only hinted at instead.

I can’t help wondering if there’s actually a really great movie lying on the editing room floor? Maybe this needed a multiple episode treatment, or that it should have been like the Irishman and allowed to run beyond three plus hours? It’s on streaming, so it wouldn’t have been a problem to let it run longer. I also mentioned it earlier that the voice over narration seemed to be there to correct some of the issues of flawed filmmaking, but as always it would be better to show us and not tell us. What do we know about the director?

*realized

R91 This is R86 The director Antonio Campus. He is not even 40 and has made some impressive films over the years notably Afterschool (2008), Simon Killer (2012) and best of all Christine (2016) with a stunning lead performance by Rebecca Hall.

They were all small scale very controlled films directed in rather minimalists styles that suited their subject matters well.

With The Devil All the Time it looks like Netflix let him go hell hog and he got lost. I haven't read the novel it is based on but The Devil All the Time lacked any of the subtlety of Campus' earlier films. It sort of like a case where you give a kid too much candy and then eat and all and get sick. The Devil All the Time would never have got green-lit by a studio even back in the 1960's to 1980's when they were making challenging stuff because it really had no vision. The violence also seemed to be there just for the sake of it and really only used to dispatch pretty much every character once the story had no further use for them.

R93 Thanks for the insight, I’ll definitely look into those other films you mention. I guess this is a case of wasted potential.

It’s interesting that the violence, let alone the sex, of what the serial killers are perpetuating isn’t really shown. I guess they hint at it with the negatives, but it’s very abstract. I would have better liked to see what exactly the relationship between the two of them was supposed to be and how he developed it. Maybe if there had been a scene early on about their first kill and how he drew her in and got her to participate. In all their whole chance meeting in the diner captured my attention more than that of Holland’s parents. Then there was very little follow up of their story until much later when I’d all but forgotten about them as characters.

And what was the sexual nature of it for him? I think the narrator says something about her necrophilia, but was just it just a cuckold situation for him? Did he have sex with them too, or only the dead body after the kill? And what were the roots of all this for both of them? I guess the book might hold some answers. And I guess part of what your supposed to wonder is what would have happened if the two couples would have been switched up with partners and what the trajectories of their lives would then have become. That premise of four people meeting in the same day and it transforming their lives is a neat premise that hooked me at the start of the movie. I assume that was the kernel for the whole book by the author.

The serial killer scenes were clearly written/edited for modesty...in a film where a guy shoves a knife through his wife’s neck and we watch her bleed out. How comically ridiculous.

R95 Screwdriver, and it was so menacingly sharpened by the cousin before hand so you know he was in on it. I did miss if we knew before hand of the killing if he did it believing she was going to be resurrected, I only got that by the narrator afterwards. Maybe they didn’t give that up before so that it would be the total shock that it was?

And I think I read in the synopsis of the book that whatever was done to the cousin was a result of him doing something similar to him and injuring him. Did I miss what happen to the cousin after they fled the murder of the wife?

R96, I think we just saw him sitting in the back seat of the car, confused.

Is Antonio Campus from Columbia?

R70 I liked Evans in Before We Go, which he directed. He's good in that type of dramas.

R94 Carl cut off that soldier's dick, so there was probably a sadistic element to it. Not sure about necrophilia.

A standout performance from Tom Holland. None of that super hero bullshit. Pattinson was excellent as well. But the movie was too long and lacked cohesion. A better execution of a similar idea was last year's Them That Follow. That movie got everything right.

Glad I checked the internet for any nude scenes before watching this. Saved me 2 hours and 18 minutes of Holland Hole-less boredom.

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

R17 I agree! I almost didn't watch it because of the trailer but I'm glad I did. Slow burn for the first hour, then the stories start coming together. The last 45 minutes are very suspenseful, the ending a nail biter. Highly recommended for production values, acting, story, direction, etc. Hillbilly Gothic at its best.

best movie of the year. totally blew my mind. tom holland for emmy !!!

I sort of liked it, but definitely didn't love it. It's very grim and depressing overall.

I didn't recognise Sebastian Stan initially - I assume he gained weight just for the role, he looked really doughy.

It was a mess. An entertaining mess that could've either been trimmed down OR extended by another hour. Yeah

Who knew any of these people cold act--except for Pattinson, who was nothing but a caricature, again. He'd still get IT, tho.

The trailer's a mess, the movie itself isn't.

Despite the disappointment in watching it, I still seems to be thinking about it so that’s a positive in the fact it’s made an impact and lingers in the mind.

A bleak, over the top movie. The cast is pretty good, but the story itself is far too relentlessly grim without much redemption. Pattison’s performance is almost mawkish, with his clownish accent.

Such a violent, depressing film. I hated almost every minute of it.

The novel was well written and engaging. I look forward to seeing the adaption. In the novel, one of the characters was in the closet and had an affair with a carny circus guy.

Horrific violence

Good cast, but I dropped out pretty early. I'm not usually afraid of spiders, but, sheesh, that was too much for me.

R113 Good thing. You managed to avoid the castration scenes that followed.

I actually like Pattinson. But I don't see the appeal of Holland. At all.

Wait, what is R113 talking about? I was gearing up to watch this but not if there’s spiders.

R116 Then don't watch. One character takes a box of biting spiders and pours it all over his head.

Tom Holland has a fascinating face.