Diablo

iam watching it doesn't seem bad

Terminator part 7

Unrealistic s#!t specially near end bunch of dumb men,waste of time !

Film yang bagus!

Worst thing I have ever seen. The landscape was beautiful. The US is a very beautiful country. But the history was not correct, and the Indian camp was not really authentic at all. In a way, it had the potential to become a good movie. But I don't understand why it won the San Diego award. I would not recommend it. But such a bad movie. I can not think of a worse movie. My friend agrees. A joke. I watched it because I think Camilla Belle is good. She is not even in the movie. Honestly very bad. Clover was OK though. Horrible. Bad. Horrible. Don't watch it. I have never written a review before but it was so bad I actually had to write something.

I'm going to go out of my way here to write a review that doesn't spoil anything about this movie but still tries to convey why I enjoyed it. When I saw the initial storyline I thought "oh, another movie/western with a 'save the lady in distress' plot..." but I gave it a chance because it was well regarded and had a young Eastwood. I went in with no real expectations, sat back and soaked it in. I'm glad I did. The scenery is impressive, the acting is solid, and the effects are overall appropriate (the "right amount" of blood from gunshot wounds). The musical score is also well-placed and varies. There are plenty of details which may seem illogical upon scrutiny, and usually this bothers me, but here it did not because of the bold direction this movie took. I have enjoyed many Westerns ("Once Upon A Time In The West" being my favorite) yet this one is quite unique, and that truly makes it worth watching. Check it out!

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.

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 message along the way. I would definitely see this movie again.

When the 7.2 rating from San Diego Film Festival started rapidly dropping towards 5.0 after the premiere, I had little to no expectations of the film. However, it turns out it might just be the onslaught of those that thought it'll be a computer game adaptation and then star struck girls that went to see it because they saw Scott Eastwood in some chick-flick or other, and after watching the film, I understand what they had against it. The start of the film is what you'd expect from a well-crafted, but altogether unmemorable Western - lonesome hero, pretty landscape shots, crossing the wilderness, fight for survival and pretty despicable antagonist. By the way, Walton Goggins was made just for such roles. However, somewhere halfway you realize you're not seeing what you think you're seeing and that's refreshing. Scott Eastwood does well looking the average cowboy hero, but he's believable. The length of the film is 90 minutes, which is just succinct enough to keep you entertained throughout.

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!