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

Diablo(2015) is a sub-par western starring Clint Eastwood's son, Scott. I'll explain the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The good: the cinematography is gorgeous. Beautiful landscape shots of the American Frontier. Scott Eastwood looks and acts exactly like his dad (especially the mannerisms). I didn't expect the plot twist. It was a tad surprising. And now for the bad. The film is too short, and doesn't go into enough detail about the actions unfolding. Walter Goggins is wasted in this film. The ugly: The plot. Cliché, underwhelming and, at times, extremely boring. It tries to be an homage to Spaghetti Westerns, but ultimately falls flat.

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.

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.

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.