User Reviews

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!

I'm stunned into a disbelief. So many negative reviews both from audience and professional reviewers... Did I watched the same movie? Boring, nonsensical, derivative and stupid? Oh, hell no! I have seen 500+ horror movies and even though this might not be the very best or totally original, it is still great, powerful and beautifully shot. This is not simple to understand western movie with good guys and bad guys and simple to understand morale story.

No. This is a "The Dead Man" class confusing horror story that lies to the viewer. The problem is you may understand the real story maybe from the half of the movie and at that point you will have very hard time to guess what is the truth, what is the lie and what is the delusion.

In the end you will very hard time to understand what REALLY happened. This movie is confusing, strange, but WAY better than the so applauded "Eight Hateful". This story is way better, more clever and actually more pleasant to watch. I would advise the viewers to stop swallow the marketing and watch the movies with their mind opened. At that point you might start to distinguish over-hyped marketing stuff and really innovative storytelling.

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.

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.

Scott Eastwood's murky frontier yarn "Diablo" is reminiscent of his father's classic horse opera "High Plains Drifter," but "Diablo" is neither half as specific nor straightf0rward. "Forger" director Lawrence Roeck and scenarist Carlos De Los Rios have contrived a polished but enigmatic western about a psychologically tormented Civil War veteran who isn't the hero that we are lead to believe that he is until the high body count showdown. Whether you like this curious western, you cannot fault "Jurassic Park" lenser Dean Cundey's breathtaking widescreen cinematography, except Roeck and Cundey resort far too often to a high-flying camera drone that captures either Eastwood or his double as one of them gallops across the landscape. One good looking scene has our hero crossing lush, verdant green terrain. As we are looking down at him from a God's eye perspective, the sun casts a perfect silhouette shadow of the horseman on the ground. This is a memorable bit of composition. An interesting production detail is the snowstorm that overwhelmed the filmmakers as they embarked on this production. Roeck and Cundey exploited this atmospheric anomaly, and the scenes of Jackon riding through the snow-clad, winter paradise look awesome. Aside from Scott Eastwood's easy-going performance, "Diablo" boasts an above-average cast including Danny Glover, Walter Goggins, Adam Beach, Joaquim de Almeida, José Zúñiga, and Camille Belle. Mind you, Goggins steals every steal he has, but sadly he doesn't log a lot of screen time.

"Diablo" occurs seven years after the American Civil War. As a preamble, Roeck cites a provocative Mark Twain quote: "But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner who needed it most ..." This western starts off like a rehash of the vintage John Wayne opus "The Searchers." After a half-hour has elapsed, however, strange stuff makes you question the designation of Scott Eastwood's character. Initially, we believe the protagonist, Jackson (Scott Eastwood of "Mercury Plains"), is a hero struggling to reunite with his wife Alexsandra (Camilla Belle of "10,000 B.C.") that a gang of Hispanics have abducted during the first scene. But could he be the villain? The first time we see Jackson, he stands framed in the front door of his clapboard house in Colorado with flames backlighting him as he cuts loose with his Winchester at the fleeing kidnappers. He rescues his faithful horse Ace from the barn along with a saddle before the smoke overwhelms him and he collapses. Two friends of Jackson show up and help him. Jackson asks them to give him all the bullets that they have and they oblige him. Our hero sets off on Ace to track down the Hispanics. As the plot unfolds, you begin to wonder about Jackson. Is he the kind of hero that we should be cheering for because several oddball things occur that contradict this.

Later, Jackson catches up with some of the Hispanics, and he finds one atop a plateau blasting away with his revolver. Jackson circles around behind Auturo (Joaquim de Almeida of "Desperado") and finishes him off. Afterward, he takes a siesta and awakens to find a young Native American brave has meddled with his belongings. The young brave, Ishani (Samuel Marty of "40 Below and Falling"), shoots several arrows at him that miss Jackson, but Jackson doesn't kill him. Along the way, Jackson encounters a mysterious gunslinger, Ezra (Walton Goggins of "The Hateful Eight"), who saunters into the scene when Jackson approaches a shotgun-wielding Asian, Quok Mi (Tzi Ma of "Rush Hour"), who threatens to shoot Jackson. Without warning, Ezra sneaks up behind the Asian and shoots him in the back. Ezra notifies Jackson, "Just to keep you informed, this is my road, and as such, I collect a toll from all travelers for safe passage." According to Erza, this toll consists of everything that a person owns and perhaps even their soul. Ezra sounds like Charon, the ferryman of Hades, in Greek mythology. Ezra confesses he enjoys killing men. They brawl briefly when Ezra lowers his guard, and Jackson knocks him unconscious. Later, after Jackson catches a bullet and his horse is shot dead, Ezra reappears. He lies down beside Jackson and observes, "You are all alone in a world that don't celebrate being alone." Ezra goes to sleep beside Jackson. Ishani stumbles onto Jackson and persuades his apprehensive elders to nurse Jackson back to health. The Native Americans don't trust this "evil" white man. After Jackson leaves the Indian camp, Ezra shows up and kills all the Indians except . Jackson's travels takes him to visit an African-American, Mr. Benjamin Carver (Danny Glover of "Lethal Weapon"), who fought in the Civil War with him. Carver harbors misgivings about Jackson. Jackson tells him that his wife has been kidnapped. Carver lives with his granddaughter, Rebecca (Nesta Cooper of "All Things Valentine"), and he warns her about Jackson as he fetches his rifle and ammunition. "He's killed more men than you met in your lifetime." During a conversation between Carver and Jackson, we learn Jackson was General Sherman's best killer and that he was nicknamed 'Diablo.' Moreover, we learn Jackson accidentally shot his brother to death. Inexplicably, Jackson executes Carver. However, when the scene starts, Jackson walks up and finds Ezra threatening to shoot Carver. Presumably, Jackson and Ezra are the same, like the Brad Pitt character was the flip side of Edward Norton's character in "Fight Club. Afterward, Jackson confronts the Mexicans who took his wife. Alexsandra screams when Jackson sneaks up behind her, and she flees with the Mexicans.

Scott Eastwood is a dead ringer for his dad, and he looks comfortable in western garb. He isn't bad as far as his acting goes either. Lensed on location in British Columbia, "Diablo" emerges as a good looking western with some gorgeous scenery but the narrative seems incomprehensible, particularly when Jackson and Ezra appear to be one in the same. The ending suggests evil triumphs.

Jackson (Scott Eastwood) was the top killer for General Sherman in the Civil War. His wife Alexandra (Camilla Belle) was abducted by three Spanish speaking men out in the wilds of Colorado 1872. Jackson tracks them south when he meets a dark stranger (Walton Goggins) who enacts a toll to travel his road, wanting all that Jackson has, including, maybe his soul. Jackson manages to get away, going down the road of purgatory in what appears to be some existential film.

The film was interesting even if Scott Eastwood isn't. This was another limited lines, not needing to act production for Scott. 54 minutes into the film, the identity of the dark stranger is revealed. The mystery aspect of the film kept me entertained, but clearly won't be on my re-watch list.

Guide: I caught 1 F-bomb. No sex or nudity.

There are any number of scenes in which Scott Eastwood affects the look, mannerisms and posture of his more famous Dad, but he simply doesn't have the same gravitas that Clint Eastwood brought to his films, particularly the Sergio Leone spaghetti classics. Lord knows that he probably tries, but you can't help feeling that he's not really up to the task.

No doubt the characters of Jackson (Eastwood) and the enigmatic Ezra (Walton Goggins) are opposite sides of the same coin in this intriguing Western. But it's only intriguing up to a point, and for anyone not paying attention, it will become confusing when Jackson shoots his friend Benjamin Carver (Danny Glover). That's because the connection the story tried to make between Jackson and his alter-ego is clumsily written; note that it was Ezra who killed the Indians who befriended Jackson and nursed him back to health after his gunshot wound. Things begin to finally sort out when Jackson catches up to the Mexicans who kidnapped his 'wife', and by then you should have a pretty good idea what the story is all about.

A beef I have with movies like this - you only find out the names of the characters by catching the film's credits list, or reading them here on IMDb's title page for the picture. Like Ezra - when was he ever called that in the movie? Same with the Indians Nakoma (Adam Beach) and Ishani (Samuel Marty). However this fault does have it's advantages, as I would never have known there was a character in the story named Pitikwa, portrayed by Native American actor Morris Birdyellowhead. How cool a name is that?

You know, there's something about Walton Goggins that makes me like the actor even though I've only ever seen him as a villain beginning with his stint as Boyd Crowder in the cable series "Justified". He's like one of those heel pro wrestlers you like to cheer like Randy Savage or Ric Flair. That's a unique characteristic, which means we'll probably be seeing a lot more of him in the future. As long as he stays a bad guy; I'd hate to see him turn into a hero.

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.

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...