jett_julie Okay, I've seen every movie the elder Eastwood has been in and I think what makes him so great is he picked his material well. Scott should have known better than take this role. He's never going to be the cowboy Clint was, period. He shouldn't even try. The only saving grace in this movie is the cinematography, it was beautifully photographed. The problem was the story, it just wasn't well written. If you don't have a good story, without holes, you're screwed. For example, after he leaves the Indians who save him, Eastwood's character goes to reach into his saddlebag and there appears to be hair with blood in the bag. Is it a scalp? There's never any explanation given. Did Eastwood scalp the Indians? Big holes like that ruin this movie. Also the dialog was terrible. I stuck with it hoping I'd get an explanation and never did. At the end I just said, WTF???

princechin When movies that are very recent are on Hulu I get suspicious of it being a very bad movie. This is another movie that confirms my suspicions.The idea of this movie is good, but the movie was rushed and could have used a better script. The longer you watch the movie the worse the movie will seem. It's as though funding or interest in the movie was running low, so the creators just ended it any way they felt. The camera shots are not too bad, and set designing is your typical idea of a western, but with very few people in the movie. The script for me is what ruined the movie. I suggest not to watch this movie if you're looking for a GOOD movie.Synopsis of the story: The script follows a character named Jackson, his wife is kidnapped and Jackson wants to go and find her. He runs into trouble along the way, and a homicidal man with a black coat and hat keeps appearing and threatening Jackson. Later in the movie you find out the man Jackson saw was actually a hallucination, and that man is another one of his personalities. You find out his wife is not actually his wife, and that she's married to someone. The story then ends abruptly shortly afterwards.

cliffsofdover This is my firs review for IMDb...and I'm only doing it because the movie was so ...atrocious. The scenery was beautiful...that's the only redeeming thing about the movie. I should have really followed the reviews from IMDb...but foolishly wasted 1.5 hours of my time. Wish I hadn't

Wizard-8 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.