Diablo

The movie starts out as a good western with Scott Eastwood doing his best imitation of his dad. The imagery is amazing and the story builds well. Along the way a VERY interesting twist is presented that changes the feel of the entire story. Then, all of the protagonists become stupid ducks in a shooting gallery. Can't anyone shoot at a guy that is standing out in the OPEN??!! A hundred feet away??!!! Or hide behind a frigging rock??!! Or NOT run into battle with no gun??!! And, wait there's more! A finale that will leave you scratching your head and feeling sad as Scott's dad (Clint) cries himself to sleep...

Save 107 minutes of your life and watch one of Clint's old spaghetti westerns. They may be outlandish and have odd characters, but, they make some sense and the music is amazing.

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.

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

I only watched this film as I was interested to see what Clint Eastwoods son would be like in a western type film. I am a big Clint Eastwood fan and his son is nothing like him. I understand he shouldn't try and copy his dad but at the same time the acting was poor. Not one I would watch again.

"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-.