phanthinga
I love when a movie with a genetic plot surprise me with a cool twist but in this case with Diablo screw the plot twist cause there nothing wrong with being a genetic movie as long as it entertaining and don't hurt your brain.At the time Diablo is the first western movie with Scott Eastwood son of the legendary Clint Eastwood so I know alot of people hope this movie will mark the new badass cowboy in town but it turn out that Scott only got some part of his dad face and none of his dad charistma.Every single person Scott met along the road fear him like he is the reincarnation of Satan or something when they got plenty of chance to kill him right from the get-go so when the movie hit it climax with a shoot-out I can only rolling my eyes while watching Scott acting like a maniac that too good for his own good until the movie end
m-arsic0708
i give it a 4 because half way through i didn't't look that awful. i did read the reviews and somehow didn't't quite agree with all the bad ones. until the finale. it was clear that something was not quite right about the "kidnapped wife". but the final scenes were just laughable. a guy standing in the middle of a courtyard, ten guns on him and no one shoots him. he shoots all of them instead. o, pleeeeaseee. and the rightful husband finally having a chance to finish the the bad guy's and the audience's agony, chooses to have a conversation instead.serves him right to be shot..... the writer should be sued for insulting my intelligence. eastwood junior is quite nice looking but if he continues to choose such movies to appear in, that's exactly what he will stay. eastwood junior. btw is danny glover in financial trouble? i definitely choose to remember goggins for sons of anarchy.
Keyser Zose
This movie had such promise, with an interesting premise and good actors but somehow the director manage to squander any talent used in this movie. You're thrown into the thick of the action when we see a group of riders burning a house that belongs to a veteran named Jackson (Eastwood) down. We quickly learn that his wife has been kidnapped and he knows roughly where they're going. He meets a sadistic killer (Goggins) along the way, that seemingly is stalking him. And when he meets an old comrade (Glover) from the war this movie really starts to fall apart and any subtle ques goes right out the window. We learn that Jackson committed atrocities during the war, and it's hinted that he suffered a severe psychological breakdown after accidentally shooting his younger brother. And that the sadistic killer that keeps turning up at every turn is in fact Jackson himself, and suddenly the acting do a complete 180 as Jackson turns from hardened veteran looking for his wife into a sneering psychopath who kills everyone that happens to be in his way. Instead of showing subtle changes it's like flicking a switch for the main character and any chance this movie could have had to redeem itself is completely gone. In short, this movie had promise but the execution was as shoddy as it could possible have been. Only see this if you're very bored one day and don't have anything else to watch.
rob-2411
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.
AD
