A combination of brilliant writing, great actors, stunning cinema photography, up and coming Director, this movie has it all. I found it to be very engaging from the start, great effects, subtle moments that reflect the movie makers of old. I found myself completely immersed in the story. The score was that of a western epic, simply marvelous. The film also shows the effects of war, highlighting content otherwise overlooked in mainstream cinema. Scott Eastwood is a natural in the old west environment and brings a youthful approach to a classic character. If you like Western's and <more>
don't mind taking a journey into a period when self reliance and dealing with the harsh environments were part of the trip, than you found the right movie. I could go on and on. The Director Lawrence Roeck has a way with the actors allowing them to shine and become the characters they represent. It is evident when you watch the interaction between the actors. The writer Carlos Del Rios is spot on, and has insights into a time when the glamor of the West was highlighted and sensationalized. He focuses on the deep gorges, the untold stories and lost valleys that souls got lost in. See this film and get lost in it. I approve this message.
A stunning ride, unexpected twists (by scrappydonna-33955)
Diablo takes you on a ride like no other, with unexpected twists and turns, danger lurking behind every corner -- the gritty realities of the West in a post-civil war era come to the fore as lines between good and evil are blurred. The film sweeps you up in soaring and breathtaking cinematography in the brilliant hands of Dean Cundey. An Eastwood may be the leading man but this isn't your Daddy's western! Inner territories are traversed, tropes used in traditional Westerns do not apply here, and then there is the cast -- fitting that an Eastwood would usher in a new era of Western <more>
film. Walton Goggins turns in a visceral, compelling performance, and Danny Glover shows why he's a legendary Hollywood talent. Thrilling, shocking, poignant, gorgeous -- see it!
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 <more>
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.
This is not a western. This is a regular horror movie (by the_wolf_imdb)
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 <more>
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.
A different take on the western genre! (by contact-70474)
For Kate Cook from Canada who stupidly said " I cannot believe most of the movies he Scott Eastwood has been cast in are westerns." Name me the other westerns he has starred in as Im pretty sure that Diablo is his FIRST.To me, the negative reviews for this movie are way off the mark. Its a cool western with a twist on your usual run-of-the-mill western.So OK the plot may have been pretty easy to work out quite soon on in the movie BUT that doesn't spoil it in anyway.So instead of slating a movie and coming out with remarks that are inaccurate Kate Cook from Canada , review a <more>
movie for what it is instead of trashing it outright.
Interesting take on a Modern Western (by shilohvitale)
I saw this film at the San Diego Film festival and was intrigued by the modern spin of the old westerns we're use to. Scott Eastwood carried the plot along, keeping us guessing until the very end, and Danny Glover's dramatic performance sucked me in. I love seeing a story that's been told time and time again turned upside down and gives the audience something new and unexpected. Diablo was a refreshing western that made me pay attention and enjoy as it unfolded on the screen. From the wonderful actors to the beautiful scenery, Diablo was able to deliver a powerful movie and strong <more>
message along the way. I would definitely see this movie again.
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 <more>
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!