Diablo (2015) User Reviews

A "Clint-like" curiosity .........

[merklekranz · 5/10 · 29 June 2016]

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

Go watch a different western movie

[PeterLormeReviews · 4/10 · 23 January 2016]

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.

Could have been so much better, but no.....

[savingmoney · 4/10 · 27 February 2016]

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.

Disappointing, Interesting Premise but Poorly Crafted

[edwardbanderson · 2/10 · 4 December 2015]

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.

Waste of time

[slcholtz · 1/10 · 23 January 2016]

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.

He should've asked his father for help. Awful.

[peesea · 2/10 · 8 January 2016]

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.

Good Actor - Bad Movie

[extremecraigfan · 1/10 · 8 January 2016]

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.

Awful Movie

[sdhinternet · 1/10 · 17 January 2016]

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.

Better than expected - not your typical western

[stamirodan · 7/10 · 23 May 2016]

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.

Just Awful. Waste of time watching

[jtvviewerpublic · 1/10 · 15 January 2016]

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.

This was a strange beast...

[johnplocar · 8/10 · 12 January 2016]

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!

Not A Spaggati Wastern

[bwc-maneke · 7/10 · 6 March 2016]

Let me make one thing clear, this is not your typical old school western. I grew up watching Clints, Waynes and several other Westerns I have undoubtedly seen them all. This is movie is more of a modern twist on the that genre and throws a nice curve ball pretty early to let you know exactly where this movie is going to go. So if thats not your thing its fine I invite you to take it back to RedBox and go get Hotel Transylvania. Personally I found this movie intense, suspenseful, shockingly horrifying and somewhat brutal, I loved it. Would not recommend for younger viewers it is absolutely not appropriate for children. I dare say more as it might give spoilers.

Disappointing movie - waste of time

[server-six · 3/10 · 9 January 2016]

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...

Plainly Painful

[brucesarn · 3/10 · 12 January 2016]

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.

Who does he think he is,Clint Eastwood?!

[Lovefilms9876 · 4/10 · 21 May 2021]

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.

Unbelievably Bad

[mjfphoto · 1/10 · 7 March 2016]

I thought "The Lady In The Van" was slow, but this film beats it. So boring, with unnecessary aerial shots that dragged on forever. A ridiculous story line with zero character development. The story was a mass of confusion, with characters that came and went with no known reason. And, what's with the blood stained shirt that continued to be red through weeks of use. Doesn't blood, when it drys on material, turn a shade of brown? Scott Eastwood may have a future, but it will be nothing like his father's. This entire movie was a waste of time, talent, and film. Unbelievable. There goes ninety minutes of my life that I will never get back.

Horrible

[michaelacarlzon · 1/10 · 8 January 2016]

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.

Retro western worth watching to see Scott Eastwood

[mbloyd · 5/10 · 29 August 2016]

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.

Better Than the Rating Says

[emma03 · 7/10 · 14 January 2016]

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.

Please don't make acting as your career, please

[MovieIQTest · 9 January 2016]

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.

Not worth the time

[peter-chadwick-194-227528 · 1/10 · 12 January 2016]

My five year old grandson could have written this script, it is so predicable. Watched this with my wife in the local complex, between us we knew almost everything that was going to happen next, and where the story was going, an absolutely dreadful movie.. Could have been much better, actors are well known, traditional plot (similar tongue john Wayne epic, "the searchers) only less searchers and poor acting. Can't believe we took the IMDb rating into account to watch this, utterly appalling, don't waste your time. The believed the end was so predicable we left after 60 minutes, I read from other reviewers we made the right decision. BTW I hate leaving bad reviews because many many people put time and effort into this nonsense, and I'm quite sure, as are the production team, that on a boring spring night this I'll be rented from many "in store" DVD boxes...pity, poor movies should not make money, that's the only feedback we can give Hollywood these days.....

Not bad after all

[door-gunner-113-191358 · 10/10 · 14 January 2016]

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.

A well written, wonderfully acted, beautifully filmed psychological thriller in western clothing

[mmartinez-04028 · 7/10 · 24 December 2016]

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).

Seriously?

[chrisfuerte · 1/10 · 18 January 2016]

Sorry had to stop watching after 10 min. what a waste of Talent and time...

Just be aware of a very lousy movie with an actor that looks like his dad, who can't sell a walk as authentic....

watch if you dare... :)))

Don't know how much beer and popcorn would make it bearable...

I did look forward to a good western, Hatefull 8 wasn't really up to my expectations from Quentin, good but still... just this Diabolo is a keeper... almost same league as Battlefield Earth...

I wonder if they give it any Raspberry's. Well i don't really know what to say anymore just who ever wants to watch a western , keep on searching because this is a sorry excuse for a movie.

thanks for reading if anyone does!

OMG This is Crap

[wtmerrett · 1/10 · 4 March 2017]

I can't begin to say how bad this piece of s**t is. The only reason it got made is due to the Eastwood name being attached, as that name is gold in Hollywood, and Clint is considered royalty. His son Scott Eastwood has been acting a while now and is not bad at it but he was given horribly written dialogue to say in this nag. The Writer/Director of Diablo, Lawrence Roeck has a fascination with Clint it appears and somehow convinced his son Scott to star in this mess. With Scott involved, along with an aging Danny Glover the money was raised and this is the result. What a waste of money that could have been used to fund a real movie. Lawrence Roeck is a horrendous director and writer and should go find another line of work. I have not seen anything else Roeck has done and now do not feel the need to search more out so I can be tortured with atrocious dialogue and direction. I could not watch this one to the end and had to stop not long into it. It was that bad. Run as far as you can from this one folks.