User Reviews

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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-.

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!

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.