Diablo (2015) Online

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.

For the first two acts of the film I was right in the middle between liking and disliking it. The opening felt a little rushed, throwing the viewer right into what seemed to be a story already in progress. I felt lack of intimidation from the lead character, played by Scott Eastwood, when it was made apparent that this is a man who has been through the Civil War, seen some real death before his eyes and has killed a lot of men yet he wasn't playing it very convincingly...but that's when the third act hits and everything starts to make sense. It made sense why the film started the way it had, it made sense why this character seemed relatively weak and it made sense how Walton Goggins' character kept playing into the story. Because there is a twist in the movie that I personally didn't see coming, but I found made things make some real sense while also supplying some entertainment value towards the end of the movie.

So because of the third act I do end up recommending this movie, even though I do have some problems with it still all around I do believe that there is some enjoyment to be had with this. I would have liked a little more character development in the first couple acts so that I could have found Eastwood's character a tad more likable so the third act could have had more of an emotional impact. Other than that there was some good acting, the pacing felt like a classic old western, the cinematography was great, and I personally liked the twist.

Would I have probably preferred more of a straight-forward revenge film like what was advertised? Sure. I think that would have all around made a stronger film as a whole, but I still think what the filmmakers did here was pretty unique and clever. The third act is what is either going to make or break the film for a lot of people, it made it for me but it seems to have broken it for a lot of others so take that for what it's worth I suppose. If you see it then I hope you enjoy!

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.

Honestly, this movie is not as bad as people say. It took me 35-45 minutes to get over the fact that Scott sometimes really looks like his father. That he sometimes sounds like his father. And that he is in no way smoking small cigars like his father ;). Once i was over that i could enjoy the movie. It has an (in my point of view) interesting story that i have not seen in any other Western before. Nice (but foreseeable) twist as well. The landscape is incredible!! The scenery alone and the fact that there is not much dialog adds tremendous amounts of beauty to this movie. I am a huge fan of Western movies in general, my main preference would be Italo-Western but like i said, this one is different than any Western i know. I enjoyed it. If you let go of the whole "Eastwood" thing you might find yourself liking the movie.

I'm stunned into a disbelief. So many negative reviews both from audience and professional reviewers... Did I watched the same movie? Boring, nonsensical, derivative and stupid? Oh, hell no! I have seen 500+ horror movies and even though this might not be the very best or totally original, it is still great, powerful and beautifully shot. This is not simple to understand western movie with good guys and bad guys and simple to understand morale story.

No. This is a "The Dead Man" class confusing horror story that lies to the viewer. The problem is you may understand the real story maybe from the half of the movie and at that point you will have very hard time to guess what is the truth, what is the lie and what is the delusion.

In the end you will very hard time to understand what REALLY happened. This movie is confusing, strange, but WAY better than the so applauded "Eight Hateful". This story is way better, more clever and actually more pleasant to watch. I would advise the viewers to stop swallow the marketing and watch the movies with their mind opened. At that point you might start to distinguish over-hyped marketing stuff and really innovative storytelling.

Terrible movie. In time perhaps it'll be a fun one to watch for laughs...Like a Steven Segal pot boiler.

Plot holes galore. This story wanders all over the place with a twist in the middle that just adds to it's overall stupidity.

The Locations are all Ice, snow, mountains and a few rolling hills...Yet we have a Northern Indian tribe (of 3 men and a kiddie)feeding him peyote (desert cactus) whilst simultaneously curing his bullet wound and driving him out of their village for unexplained reasons.

From the beginning it makes no sense with a neighbour arriving on the scene to give him details of what happened ("they have your wife") after asking "what happened?" and arriving after the "baddies" had left. It's obvious his wife's "kidnapping" is voluntary from the start.

So many goofs. Just watching the far off scenes of "Diablo" on his horse looks like a kid on a pony...then we zoom into Mr Eastwood leading his big black horse. I don't think he can actually ride. His hair remains perfectly gelled and combed throughout the awful mish-mash of plot holes and bad editing.

Poor Walton Goggins and Danny Glover get drawn into this comedy of goofs...and I can't see why. Money must be the only reason as the storyline and all other actors were just so terrible.

Finally, if you're gonna place a story in the Mexican Borderline...Lets not use the mountains of Alberta, Canada for the shooting location. It's just not even close to looking like Northern Cali even. Also, how about having some Spanish looking actors play the Mexicans and dress them accordingly.

There is an attempt to show some Mexicans as they arrive for the "grand Finale" as it comes in a Big Canadian house with rolling fields and a backdrop of mountains with a young European playing Pinata.

Watch this shockingly bad dross at your peril.

OMG who wrote the reviews posted so far? - The Eastwood family? This movie is HORRIBLE in every way imaginable.

Scott Eastwood seems like he is skilled, has a natural talent for acting and is quite good at it taking in even the smallest detail and putting it back out for all to view. He is a good actor. BUT...this movie? I cannot believe most of the movies he has been cast in are westerns. His father played a lot of westerns and he does not have to follow in his footsteps in that manner. I don't know who is going along that line of thinking but it is crazy. I would hate to see him typecast so early in his career. Scott is young, talented and good looking and this movie Diablo was really beneath him - actually an insult.

Diablo was badly written, just a bad plot from beginning to end. It drags, it was just incomprehensible at times. Were we supposed to pick up on the PTSD following the Civil War? Seems to be the whole premise of the movie.

The ending made me think I had just watched a movie trailer.

What a huge disappointment. In this movie, this kid sure is no chip off the old block. It was painstakingly slow to watch.

I was really mad at the ending. Without spoiling anything, I saw at least 6 different guys take shots and miss that they should have made easily. What was up with that? You can't shoot something that close? You are all experienced gun handlers living out in the wild west, Indian country, and you couldn't shoot a 5 gallon jug on a rock 30 feet from you? The movie was as if it was made on a very small budget and the acting was so general that I paused the movie quite a few times as I was fixing dinner and doing laundry. Yes it was one of those movies.

I would never ever watch this movie again, even in 20 years.

The movie was simple horrendous, Eastwoods attempt to mimic his DAD with his icy stare and shimmering lip simply did not work. The plot itself made no sense whatsoever, the only redeeming feature of the movie was the cameo appearances from Walton Goggins & Danny Glover. Although I watched the whole film, I sat struggling not to turn it off telling myself it would improve, it did not. The wooden acting by Eastwood could only be compared to that of Arnie in his early career, having seen Eastwood in other movies I can definitely say he is a much better actor than his performance in this flick. The plot of the film was very thin and the twist at then simply made the whole thing even worse than it was. The only word I can use to describe the plot/twist is Nonsensical. Avoid like the plague.

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

When the 7.2 rating from San Diego Film Festival started rapidly dropping towards 5.0 after the premiere, I had little to no expectations of the film. However, it turns out it might just be the onslaught of those that thought it'll be a computer game adaptation and then star struck girls that went to see it because they saw Scott Eastwood in some chick-flick or other, and after watching the film, I understand what they had against it.

The start of the film is what you'd expect from a well-crafted, but altogether unmemorable Western - lonesome hero, pretty landscape shots, crossing the wilderness, fight for survival and pretty despicable antagonist. By the way, Walton Goggins was made just for such roles. However, somewhere halfway you realize you're not seeing what you think you're seeing and that's refreshing. Scott Eastwood does well looking the average cowboy hero, but he's believable. The length of the film is 90 minutes, which is just succinct enough to keep you entertained throughout.

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.

One must wonder what some reviewers are talking about when they pan this film. Eastwood was accused by at least two of bad attempts to mimic his father's mannerisms. Perhaps he picked up some of his father's behaviors, as sons sometimes do and perhaps as he is an individual those mannerisms have his own touch in them. So perhaps, instead of accusing him of trying to look and act like his father, but failing, we could understand that he is not his father though he looks and acts somewhat like him. One reviewer took the movie to task for the fact that "they couldn't hit him from 30 feet. I wonder if that person ever fired a pistol at a person they know to be a deadly killer who had the wherewithal to return fire. I myself have not. I'm fairly deadly to a paper target from 30 feet. At 50 feet, with something to rest the gun on and plenty of time to aim, I'm not a bad shot. I can't help thinking as decent a shot as I am, I cannot say with any confidence that I could shoot and kill a killer gunman who was shooting back. That scene at the farm yard, The shooters were I'd guess, at least fifty feet from Jackson(Eastwood), a long shot for a pistol with a target that does not pose a mortal peril to you. That reviewer should read up on his wild west history. The shootout at the OK corral? Lawmen & outlaws were around 20 feet of each other and I forget how many bullets were recovered for the Earp's murder trial(they were acquitted) but it was a lot and those men were all very proficient with handguns. The most unrealistic part of the movie as I see it is the peyote trip. I have eaten peyote and the portrayal of the hallucination Jackson had was ridiculous. It looked as thought he was just darting his eyes round and round and up and down very rapidly amidst the trees. In fact the only things accurate in that whole scene is that some Native American peoples do use it for ceremonies, and you usually throw up a while after you eat the buttons, right about the time the trip is getting started. Peyote trips last for hours. Very shortly after Jackson runs from the sweat lodge to hurl, they decide he is evil and so must go immediately, yet as the boy leads the horse to his stashed gear he is no longer tripping. I love that they portray what must be PTSD. I thought to myself, I don't remember Another film dealing with it from the civil war. It's reasonable to presume it afflicted soldiers then as now, they maybe called it something else or didn't call it anything. In WWII and The Korean war they called it shell shocked. The reviewers who ripped on this movie with invective and hyperbole should calm down before they give themselves a nose bleed. Diablo might benefit from a little better direction, But the acting was excellent. What can one say about the inimitable Walton Goggins? Bravisimo! It was a good story, creative and somewhat original screenplay. It has beautiful scenery. Not sure where one reviewer got the idea that it was supposed to be California. Jackson said they took the trail down to New Mexico. No trail in Cali goes down to NM. Sure, the scenery Doesn't look like country I've seen in Colorado, which I have traveled in a bit, nor indeed NM, which I have lived in for the vast majority of my life. It's called suspension of disbelief, people and if you find that short leap too difficult, if that is something that "Ruined" or "rendered in-watchable,' this movie I'm afraid you have many more disappointments in store if you continue to view movies. One reviewer said it isn't a western, but a horror story. He and I obviously have divergent definitions of Horror story. As I say in my summary, Diablo is a psychological thriller in western clothing. Don't let the naysayers throw you off. Give it a watch. You'll be surprised (unless You read a spoiler).

For Kate Cook from Canada who stupidly said " I cannot believe most of the movies he (Scott Eastwood) has been cast in are westerns." Name me the other westerns he has starred in as Im pretty sure that Diablo is his FIRST.

To me, the negative reviews for this movie are way off the mark. Its a cool western with a twist on your usual run-of-the-mill western.

So OK the plot may have been pretty easy to work out quite soon on in the movie BUT that doesn't spoil it in anyway.

So instead of slating a movie and coming out with remarks that are inaccurate (Kate Cook from Canada), review a movie for what it is instead of trashing it outright.

I am baffled that so much effort and money can be poured into a movie like this one. Either the actors are not able to visualize the script or think the director and the editor will be able to make something of apparently nothing as long as the payroll is forthcoming.

No worthwhile scripting safe for the perilous A to B movement of an avenging husband of sorts, which could have added up to something interesting. Yet there is no (obvious) trueness to the character, his actions and background, no real depth to the story except for the abundant fill-it-possibly-in-with-your-own-deep-thoughts moments and the sudden not-so-obvious post-war trauma driven plot which could have been slowly merged with the storyline from the beginning and would have given the audience a chance to position themselves emotionally towards the main character. Moments of encounter between main & supporting characters lack depth as well - they're just too short to develop a micro storyline and are mostly cut off by violence. Maybe cutting short the endless nature rides which, although beautiful, could have reserved time to do more in the more meaningful & crucial moments of the movie. Others have also mentioned the badly researched plot and, adding it all up, I would not recommend to watch this movie hoping for intellectual and emotional fulfillment...

nice movie. good plot. good acting. good scenery. good twist not seenbefore in a western. for those who might have seen it and not understood it... read the explanation below..

SPOILER ALERT::::

the main character has split personality. I think he had a one night stand with the Mexican's wife, and thought it was his wife being kidnapped the next day when the Mexican's came to get her. They were scared of him and already knew who he was which is why they did nothing to him when they took her. because his alter ego/personality is a known savage killer .. Ezra, or whatever.. the personalities seem to merge at one point ... .. interesting movie. worth a watch. twice. diablo. grab your popcorn...

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.

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.

"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'm going to go out of my way here to write a review that doesn't spoil anything about this movie but still tries to convey why I enjoyed it. When I saw the initial storyline I thought "oh, another movie/western with a 'save the lady in distress' plot..." but I gave it a chance because it was well regarded and had a young Eastwood. I went in with no real expectations, sat back and soaked it in. I'm glad I did.

The scenery is impressive, the acting is solid, and the effects are overall appropriate (the "right amount" of blood from gunshot wounds). The musical score is also well-placed and varies. There are plenty of details which may seem illogical upon scrutiny, and usually this bothers me, but here it did not because of the bold direction this movie took. I have enjoyed many Westerns ("Once Upon A Time In The West" being my favorite) yet this one is quite unique, and that truly makes it worth watching. Check it out!

it is interesting many have to say what a old western should be for a storyline.. for most westerns they usually don't have a planned out storyline.. it is merely for the viewer to keep attentive to each situation as it occurs in the time line.. 'Diablo (2015)' is a western.. to some might be boring but no matter what, it too still survives and probably surpasses most movies today.. great choice to put Scott Eastwood as the main role.. one sees similar aspects as when his dad Clint Eastwood played western characters.. it is great to pass on those characteristics just like a family inherited tree.. love that they choose Alberta, Canada.. it is a majestic magical place to film any western.. such like the ever so popular and also is a great western of types CBC's Heartland.. look The Revenant starring Leonardo DiCaprio was filmed in Alberta too and look what awards came to be surprisingly.. Leonardo DiCaprio should be in more western style movies.. think he would make a great present day cowboy.. so you see 'Diablo (2015)' and any western out there will always be a great movie to watch no matter what all the other critics downplay about these movies.. to know what a western is, is to live where the heart of western society exists.. otherwise you wont understand what the script writers and producers were thinking when they made these films that came to be.. put yourself in the shoes of these western character roles and i bet you will feel like a cowboy/cowgirl too.. you will see first hand that westerns will always be a part of past and future history... --- movie review by elektrikradiance (http://elektrikradiance.promodj.com) - Alberta, Canada...

Worst thing I have ever seen. The landscape was beautiful. The US is a very beautiful country. But the history was not correct, and the Indian camp was not really authentic at all. In a way, it had the potential to become a good movie. But I don't understand why it won the San Diego award.

I would not recommend it.

But such a bad movie. I can not think of a worse movie. My friend agrees. A joke.

I watched it because I think Camilla Belle is good. She is not even in the movie. Honestly very bad. Clover was OK though.

Horrible. Bad. Horrible. Don't watch it. I have never written a review before but it was so bad I actually had to write something.

The acting in this movie was not stellar, and the plot was a typical western movie plot... that is until the twist. I would not say the movie was going to be memorable, but it was unique enough with the twist to keep me interested. The rest of the story before the twist was just a rehash of cowboy movies from the late 60's and 70's. Scott Eastwood was enduring enough in the beginning that you really wanted him to be successful in his quest. On more than one occasion you wished that he would just put Walt Scoggins character down.

Reminds me of the movies that Scott's father, Clint Eastwood did dubbed the spaghetti westerns from the man with no name trilogy.

Over was not a waste of my time, but it was past my bed time when I watched it and it was nothing to lose sleep over. Koodos for the TWIST.

His father must be cringing with embarrassment. The acting was appalling, Scott Eastwood just could not be convincing in the role at all. He failed to display the menace that his character demanded, he showed no emotion when required and although his lips moved his face went in a different direction - if that makes sense. I thought the story line was original and interesting but was let down by very poor execution - what a shame, it could have been a very good film. Cinematography was superb, I take my hat off to the director and camera crew for capturing that part of the States in all it's glory. it rescued the film from a 1/10 score. And what happened to Danny Glover - apart from the Native American boy, he was the only person who could act with any conviction, and he got but a few minutes screen time. This is a 'B+' effort trying to be in the same style as a Tarantino movie mixed with a touch of Spaghetti Western and a smidgen of Dirty Harry to season. What on earth was the ending all about? and those final credits, looked like a Buggs Bunny/Daffy Duck 'And That's All Folks' finish.

As for critics saying this was like one of clints spaghetti western, you are an idiot. This movie was packed with excitement and plot twists. Eastwood performance was a credit to the Eastwood name. I miss the great western movies of past and it seems this movie lives up to that.

I think that it had some great supporting actors and I wish they played more into the movie.

I really enjoyed this movie.

I would recommend this to both western movie lovers and just for people that enjoy a action packed movie.