Diablo

This movie was absolutely horrible! The acting was bad, the writing was terrible, the directing & producing were not good at all... It could have been a good movie, but it was all so unrealistic. The characters were unbelievable and everyone was repeatedly a bad shot. At one point, they don't even try when the target is standing right out in the open & they all have cover. Then when they shoot at the almost still target at close range they repeatedly miss & walk out into the open just to pull the trigger... The time line was completely messed up, days of being laid up & the others are less than a day ahead. Also, he rides for what appears to be days & then there are still the same natives camped nearby in a completely unrealistic camp. Things throughout the whole movie don't make sense. It was a complete waste of our time. It was so bad that I actually signed up just to write this review.

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

Lawrence Roeck's second feature has the skeleton of an interesting symbolic western -- at times even a western psychological thriller -- but the screenplay never provides flesh or a beating heart. The attempt feels like a rough draft. Despite its short running time and dislike for extra details, it locks into a loose rhythm in the early going. Walton Goggins' character, played with a wicked spirit, brings a great deal of life to the film in his brief scenes. Goggins' presence begs for comparisons to The Hateful Eight, which wouldn't be in Diablo's favor. Eastwood, upstaged by Goggins and Glover, takes a bold move in his willingness to so directly invoke his father. The two look uncannily alike. His primary acting strengths lie elsewhere, but the flimsiness of his character here can be chalked up to poor writing. Technical credits are strong, and despite a somewhat foreboding score, the film looks excellent for its budget.

"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-.

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.