criterionforum.org

The Devil All The Time (Antonio Campos)

I think Campos has been a somewhat promising director for a while now. This probably isn't his best work, and I think lacks some adaptive ingenuity and nuance, but still I'm intrigued by it and what Campos continues to work on in the future.

I am a little torn between wishing the screenplay hadn't tried to capture so much of the book and instead had focused a bit more on just Arvin's story and yet still liking what we do get of the other stories. I think the editing takes some getting used to because of how it jumps around in time a bit and between narratives. The narration, too, by the author Douglas Pollock himself, can feel a bit awkward and inelegant--but after a while I came to appreciate it as a bit of tonal contrast with its sort of wry perspective and understated bluntness.

I do think the film starts to come together mid-way through and I think the last act is really engaging. I don't know if the film found a great way to conclude--it feels like it is almost there but maybe needed one more shot or thematic tie-in to resonate better, but my feelings could change there on a rewatch. Seemed like some subtext might have been happening there that might've been too subtle for me to pick up on right away.

Holland was great. Whole cast was really good, honestly, that really helped keep the film clicking through most of its scenes. A lesser cast and this could have been a chore to get through. Pattinson--I'm not sure exactly what he was going for, it was kind of ridiculous...but still kind of worked? I dunno, I "enjoyed" his performance, I guess you could say. Also thought all the actresses did really well and elevated their characters.

Technical credits were very good for the most part. For as violent and dark as the film is at times, it does end up having a sort of subdued impact because of the looseness of the narrative and all its threads. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, and I definitely felt drawn into the film for the majority of its runtime.

I thought it was pretty terrible. So stubbornly, superficially, self-consciously bleak that it quickly becomes eye-rollingly comical. The stories were utterly banal, plus Campos (and I assume Pollock) had no idea how to resolve them, so he takes the easy way out with nearly all of them. I also hated the structure, which ensured that all we know about the characters is that they're impulsive, violent brutes, either because of a fucked-up family or blind faith.

Yeah, I can definitely understand that reaction. It wasn't one of those movies where I watched it and thought, "Gee, I can't believe this is getting mixed reviews!"

I liked the book when I read it, but watching the movie the material feels kinda juvenile in how tidily bleak it all is. Every situation is exactly like you'd expect based on the last. I kept thinking how much more watchable a Jim Thompson adaptation is with the same heinous stuff.

Yeah, I ended up writing a pretty mixed bag review of this for Paste.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/an ... ix-review/

It's too bad because there are a lot of elements I liked, but I think this one kind of undermined itself at the script level and no amount of acting or technical execution is going to overcome that, especially if the execution is not geared towards a more pulpy or heightened cinematic experience. It's prestige movie mode for a C+ screenplay.

Great review Persona. I think you're right that to mine any meaning out of the material, you probably have to pare it down to Arvin's story. I'm wondering if a more focused narrative with Campos' restraint would have actually been a pretty good movie.

Wasn't a huge fan of Pattinson but maybe that's just fatigue on that sort of character.