Diablo

I was mainly interested in seeing how much Scott Eastwood reminded me of his Father in those highly entertaining "spaghetti westerns". To be certain there are similarities and mannerisms that are spot on. Perhaps a bit more squinting might nail it? As for the film itself, "Diablo" is a confusing entity. This might have worked better as a simple revenge western without the gimmicky good/evil flip flop. I was impressed however with the cinematography, which is outstanding, however pictures alone cannot make up for the scattered story line, and an ending that screams "out of money". The movie is watchable, especially for those who are curious about how "Clint-like" Scott Eastwood appears to be. - MERK

Well, this might have been a good movie, with supporting actors Walton Goggins, Danny Glover and Adam Beach. Unfortunately, after a jump-started beginning with Eastwood's character off to rescue his kidnapped wife, the initial mood of dark foreboding quickly dissipates as the primary plot vehicle becomes too transparent.

I don't want to go into much further detail in case you watch it. But this movie is just plain under-developed, from the script to the characters, (Scott Eastwood is done a disservice here), through to an ending which is altogether unfulfilling.

Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I don't think so. A quick scan of the audience's faces showed a few who were captured by the action, yet many more who were bored, perplexed, and otherwise disengaged.

Again, it's a shame. Because this could have been a fantastic movie.

"They call you Diablo. I asked the men what it meant. When they told me I learned something about you." Jackson (Eastwood) is a Civil War vet who is trying to put his past behind him. When he comes back to find his wife missing he sets out to get her back. This is a pretty good western with a few neat and original ideas but just never really lives up to its potential. There is so much that could have been done with this movie but it seemed to hold back to the point of becoming irritating. Eastwood is good in this but the movie seemed to rely on the fact that this is a western starring Clint Eastwood's son rather then trying to succeed on its own merit. All that said, it's not terrible and one of the better westerns to come out lately, but based on the last dozen or so in the genre that's not really saying a lot. Overall, a movie that had so much potential but left too much on the table to be as interesting as it could have been. I give it a B-.

I have to say that those who gave this poor movie 8 stars to 10 stars are just not honest reviewers who either were the investors of this movies or guys who were suckered into seeing this lousy movie and simply didn't want to be the minority morons who've spent time and/or money to watch it and wanted to fool more people to be like them. This film should never be produced in the first place.

Scott Eastwood should not try to make acting as his career by using his father's influence and reputation to cash in for an easy ride. "Mercury Plains" was already too bad to watch, and this 'Diablo' further proved that he simply doesn't have the gift of acting. The shape of his lips and mouth won't allow him to become a serious actor but a man with a fatal weakness. It's a baby face that no matter how he put beard or a week's stubs on his chin, it just doesn't work. Leo DiCaprio used to have a child-like weak voice that made him unfit for all those tough characters to convince me as the real beings in those movies until 'Revenant' came along, his voice finally turned quite like an adult instead of underage who never became mature enough, making his acting more believable and convincing enough to finally become a Great Actor! Other than Scott Eastwood's mouth and lips shapes are the fatal weak facial feature that could never make him a believable enough character in any film, the lacking of talent of acting is the doomed verdict that he should not seek acting as his career. He should not waste his and our time to fool us by his father's legendary cinema background and put his father to shame. If he decided to fool himself to believe that he could survive in the movie industries, all the best he might have achieved is a B(Bullsh@t)-movie (or shall we say, C*rap-movie?) level actor, and that's for sure.

Consider this is not an insult but a sincere reality check, young man. I really don't like to see you waste your adulthood away and save some more enjoyable time of cinema experience.

Because of the poor reviews I didn't have many expectations for this western, but, having watched it, I wonder if others saw a different movie. I watched a smart thrilling movie that gave a fresh twist to the typical western genre and stereotypical hero - akin to Bone Tomahawk (another fantastic western with a modern edge of violence). Scott Eastwood is a bit boring at the beginning but once his character evolves, he is brilliant and believable. I had no trouble following the story line and I applaud Lawrence Roeck for using dialogue and action to reveal the twist instead of dragging out a boring detailed explanation.This is not your formulaic Clint Eastwood Western but rather a next generation western in both actor and plot. Well done.