A Disappointing Continuation

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

I was not expecting a movie with such a perfectly, horrific presence and reality check of the horrors of war. I love the transition between the Scott Eastwood and Walton Goggins faces of El Diablo. It was so well done that I almost missed the obvious. How could Ezra keep pace with Jackson unless they were one and the same?I loved how Lawrence Roeck used Benjamin Carver, DannyGlover's character, to finally weave the two (Jackson and Ezra) into one person. I take my hats off to Carlos De Los Rios and Lawrence Roeck for designing a character so flawed in his own perception of the world; so lost in his own wickedness, and so far grace and humanity. Of course, Scott Eastwood's fair-face portrayal of Jackson plays into building upon your sympathies. We have all bought in false realities and if we were lucky, lived to regret it. In this movie, you also see a character, an excellent soldier, affected by his own engagement in the U.S. Civil War. There is no doubt that Erza is suffering from emotional effects of war on him as we know of them today as PTSD and other acute war-related syndromes. It's no surprise, once you understand the distress that soldiers experience during war, that they find it hard to be the same, emotionally, ever again. There is do doubt that war fatigue could turn the mildest of people into mentally traumatized killers. We all wrestle with the nature of our souls at times and we are not solder or we're never in the military. Jackson has not lost his soul. It's been possessed. His own dead brother appears before him as proof. The imagery was hauntingly relevant.Carlos De Los Rios and Lawrence Roeck have simply updated the reality of surviving the Civil War with accepted knowledge of the symptoms of psychological damage of being forced them to kill. In the case one peculiar consequence; a monster is born: Diablo - It's one Hell of a movie!

I feel I should mention first that I am a big fan of westerns, so much so that I am more charitable to examples of this genre that aren't so majestic. So take what you will with my statement that I thought "Diablo" was an okay western. Yes, I saw a number of flaws with it. It's kind of a slow-moving exercise, and Scott Eastwood's performance is somewhat bland. Also, there are some plot points that are made to be either somewhat unclear or simply not clear at all (for example: How did Eastwood's character get his hands on the woman he's tracking in the first place?) But the movie has some strengths. It is very good-looking, well photographed on some scenic locations in Alberta. (See this movie on Blu-ray as I did.) The at times elaborate camera-work also contributes some spectacular looking shots. While the script does have some garbled plot points, the central plot is one that I don't recall seeing in a western before (though you have to wait a while to see how that is exactly so.) And I have to confess that I wasn't bored at any point despite the movie's slow pace.In the end, I think the movie is okay. But what do I know - I am a big fan of westerns, even ones that are flawed. So use this review along with your opinion of the western genre to determine whether you'd enjoy this movie or not.

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

To begin, this is a very good movie. The actors and acting was terrific. I love setting and theme of the story. The supporting cast was pretty good and they played all of their roles wonderfully. But to the main character, Scott Eastwood, he was wonderful in this movie. Watching it made me feel like I was watching his father. The directors style looks exactly like a Clint Eastwood western movie. The story itself was terrific, it definitely catches you off guard and you must keep your eyes glued to the screen in order to understand it. But after watching this movie a couple of times you definitely will have your eyes glued in and you won't want to take them off. It gives you a feeling of being there with Scott and you want to tell him what to do and what not to do. This movie should definitely get more credit than it received because Scott made this movie just like his father made his movies.