the audience applauded
Save your money for something good and enjoyable
It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.
There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.
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.
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.
Saw this on a plane and to be honest I didn't realize who played the main character right away, but later on boy does he look like Clint.I found the movie to be captivating from the outset, but plot holes began to erode the story. Still mostly enjoyed the film, even as credibility waned near the end.I thought the scenery was great and the use of drones for overhead shots really captured the striking landscape, but from the beginning I started to be puzzled by many things...How long would it take him to ride from snow covered mountains to Mexico on horseback? Why did he continue to catch up to the Mexicans regardless of how long he was not riding (no horse, injured, etc).Goggins was great and stole the screen in every shot.I wondered near the end if the main character was akin to the Ghost Rider, where he cannot actually be shot - or maybe nobody really tried - but why? Why do all the Mexicans run toward a gunfight, without guns being drawn and pointed, and firing? How many actual shots were directed at Eastwood? I'd say very few, remarkably.Finally it appeared at the end, the film makers ran out of time, money or interest and came up with a quick ending and not a very good one.Overall, a decent movie weakened by plot holes and that feeling of being cheated in the end.
Released in 2015, "Diablo" stars Clint Eastwood's son, Scott Eastwood, as a desperate man chasing a group of Mexicans who burned down his home and took his woman.The filmmaking is great, including the cinematography and score. On top of this Scott is definitely reminiscent of his great father; it remains to be seen if he can build on the solid foundation, but this Western isn't a good start. Why? The story is dull from the get-go and only becomes mildly compelling in the second half. Not to mention there's zero character development, more like character devolvement, if you know what I mean. Worse, the movie's overbearingly downbeat, and not in a good way, as with great films like "Midnight Express" (1978), "Runaway Train" (1986) or "Apocalypse Now" (1979). Then there's some mysterious killer who just seems to pop out of nowhere every twelve minutes. The reason for this is explained in the third act, but you'll suspect it beforehand.Then, there's the roll-your-eyes shoot out at the end where all the "bad guys" (or are they?) become hopeless sitting ducks. Can't ONE of these tough Westerners shoot a guy who's standing out in the open a mere hundred feet away? Can't they hide behind something in safety while they kill the dude? Or how about NOT running in the open as easy prey? Could they really be this stoo-pid and incompetent? For more commentary, see "Spoiler Alert" below.The movie runs 82 minutes and was shot in Alberta, Canada.GRADE: D+ ***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read further if you haven't seen the movie) "Diablo" is one of those bait-and-switch movies, like 2009's "A Perfect Getaway," where you're led to believe that the main character is the hero-protagonist, but the final act reveals that he (or she) is actually a monstrous criminal. It's a twist that makes you feel like a dumb axx for caring about the protagonist earlier. Pull-the-rug-out-from-under-you movies can be good, even great, but I have a distaste for this kind, where the protagonist is revealed to be a total scumbag.The third act confirms that Jackson (Eastwood) suffers from schizophrenia/dissociative identity disorder and while killing the man played by Danny Glover his identities merge and he goes on a rampage.So Jackson is the bad guy of the story, which explains his nickname and the title of the movie, Diablo, which is Spanish for "devil." He was never actually married to Alexsandra (Camilla Belle). The Mexican posse didn't kidnap her, but rather rescued her and were bringing her back home. Jackson obviously kidnapped her sometime before the start of the movie.Jackson is certainly a human devil: He shoots up a hamlet of innocents and then murders Alexsandra and her husband when he sees that he can't have her.