Diablo (2015)

GENRESAction,Adventure,Thriller,Western
LANGEnglish,Spanish,Cree
ACTOR
Scott EastwoodWalton GogginsCamilla BelleAdam Beach
DIRECTOR
Lawrence Roeck

SYNOPSICS

Diablo (2015) is a English,Spanish,Cree movie. Lawrence Roeck has directed this movie. Scott Eastwood,Walton Goggins,Camilla Belle,Adam Beach are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2015. Diablo (2015) is considered one of the best Action,Adventure,Thriller,Western movie in India and around the world.

This is a story about a deeply disturbed civil war veteran and mass murderer searching for a woman that he kidnapped to be his wife. She was rescued by her brothers and husband. During his search we see him as a split personality, one, the sad war veteran, and the other, the evil mass murderer. As the story unfolds, the sad war veteran takes one the personality of the evil mass murderer. The murderer goes on to find the woman he was looking for and to murder almost everyone.

Diablo (2015) Reviews

  • Disappointing, Interesting Premise but Poorly Crafted

    edwardbanderson2015-12-04

    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 was a strange beast...

    johnplocar2016-01-12

    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!

  • Waste of time

    slcholtz2016-01-23

    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.

  • Not bad after all

    door-gunner-113-1913582016-01-14

    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.

  • He should've asked his father for help. Awful.

    peesea2016-01-08

    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.

Hot Search