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

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 have to say that those who gave this poor movie 8 stars to 10 stars are just not honest reviewers who either were the investors of this movies or guys who were suckered into seeing this lousy movie and simply didn't want to be the minority morons who've spent time and/or money to watch it and wanted to fool more people to be like them. This film should never be produced in the first place.

Scott Eastwood should not try to make acting as his career by using his father's influence and reputation to cash in for an easy ride. "Mercury Plains" was already too bad to watch, and this 'Diablo' further proved that he simply doesn't have the gift of acting. The shape of his lips and mouth won't allow him to become a serious actor but a man with a fatal weakness. It's a baby face that no matter how he put beard or a week's stubs on his chin, it just doesn't work. Leo DiCaprio used to have a child-like weak voice that made him unfit for all those tough characters to convince me as the real beings in those movies until 'Revenant' came along, his voice finally turned quite like an adult instead of underage who never became mature enough, making his acting more believable and convincing enough to finally become a Great Actor! Other than Scott Eastwood's mouth and lips shapes are the fatal weak facial feature that could never make him a believable enough character in any film, the lacking of talent of acting is the doomed verdict that he should not seek acting as his career. He should not waste his and our time to fool us by his father's legendary cinema background and put his father to shame. If he decided to fool himself to believe that he could survive in the movie industries, all the best he might have achieved is a B(Bullsh@t)-movie (or shall we say, C*rap-movie?) level actor, and that's for sure.

Consider this is not an insult but a sincere reality check, young man. I really don't like to see you waste your adulthood away and save some more enjoyable time of cinema experience.

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.

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.