Diablo

"DIABLO" is a fun flick with many layers and a story that pays homage to comic books.

From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected.

The acting is also a strong aspect of the film. It is nice to see non-stereotypes to tell a story with Mexican origins.

Don't forget to listen to the filmmaker's commentary track...the director (Napton) and DP (Fredericks) make it a fun listen with behind the scene stories and exact explanation for production techniques.

This is a college made film or something. It was surprising especially being made in early 2000's how good the special effects, the makeup, costume really are. They really find their footing in the second act.

Once you've invested a little bit of time, you will wish to see the end of it. Once the second act starts you will end up finishing it.

The movie will shock you as how satisfying it actually was.

Best experienced with friends, the more, the merrier.

You will certainly enjoy it with friends. CERTAINLY.

You should go listen to Distractible. Episode is "So bad it's good".

The review is by Wade Barnes.

If you're reading this review it's already too late. You've been duped by the distributor into thinking this is a real movie, which, as you should be aware, this most certainly isn't. This must have been Robert Napton's pet project. He probably always wanted to direct a movie and thought he might give it a go. While that's all well and good for him and the nice people he paid to shoot this during a rain free weekend, it simply isn't a real movie.

If you're one of the few people here bothering to look at this page without having experienced this first hand, you may be wondering, "how is this not a 'real movie', exactly?"

Oh, let us count the ways.

The most striking absence is in the lighting department. By that I mean they didn't have one. Every single shot is flat. Everything is evenly lit, at all times. It's the visual equivalent of Nyquil. I wouldn't be surprised if Napton himself just wandered around with a camera, picked a random bush to stand by, and yelled "action!"

Speaking of bushes, I suspect this was filmed in and around his own home. The entire film's events take place within a few acres of the Lopez estate with the same four or five locations reused over and over again. It's probably all they had to work with.

The acting is amateurish, as well. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, I mean they were literal amateurs doing their best in this pretend movie. The only noteworthy performance was Giovanni Lopes as the priest. I wouldn't call it good acting, but he was the only remotely human thing about this mess.

And it is a mess, but that doesn't mean I want to slam it as some travesty against the medium. All it ever wanted to be was a horror fan's attempt at making their own horror movie. Good for him, he went out and got something done, even if it sucks, it's more than I can say.

But this should never have gotten a real release. In the same way you strumming on a guitar pretending to be Bob Dylan shouldn't have it's own vinyl. This is a scam, plain and simple. This company spent basically zero dollars getting the rights so that they could slap a nice looking cover on what they knew wasn't a proper film just to cheat you out of your money. Well, sucks for you guys, I got this at Goodwill.

I rented this movie because it sounded pretty interesting but to my Horror this movie was the worst movie I had ever seen! I read the comment from Gumby-8 and he has to be a part of the cast or the crew. Unless Gumby-8 is a 4 year old child or some demented cult member no one in their right mind would think that this movie had any potential at all.

I couldn't believe Gumby-8's comments.

Quoting: "From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected."

The Animation is the only aspect of the movie that was interesting and the fact of that the film keeps the eye moving, well that's because you keep looking for any type of suspense. I mean give me a break Halloween was shot with a budget of $100,000.00 and a painted mask and also by the way became a cult classic. As far as "repeat viewing is not unexpected" I think he made a typo.

Another quote from Gumby-8 the only Fan: "The acting is also a strong aspect of the film."

With all due respect for the actors, their performance is nothing more than the respective talent of Robert Napton.

The catchy Tagline: "Beware the hour between dusk and darkness"

That's because there is no dusk or darkness in this movie.

MPAA rating "Rated R for some violence/gore"

The only gore you see is some red paint on a sheet over a dead body you never see. As far as I know it might be a clump of grass.

In summation, I have seen horror flicks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I have seen what I thought to be the absolutely worst and some that were very good. The director of this film either did not make any attempt, was asleep, or took a hit of acid. Whatever the case I think the actors deserve applause for trying to salvage a very poor job of direction. I would give this film a rating of .5 for a 'B' movie.

This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.

I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.

It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.

The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.

2.6/10 on the "B" scale.

That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...

the Fiend :.