MovieChat Forums > Diablo (2016) Discussion > Beautifully shot (and set)

Beautifully shot (and set)

posted 8 years ago by JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
4 replies | jump to latest

With a fair amount of atmosphere, and the acting was solid in my opinion.

All of the technical elements are really well done. It's a really well-made film on a technical level in my opinion.

But I agree with the common complaints: it's too slow, too uneventful and sparse in its story, especially for such a short film. Too many things are underexplained--there are a buncha plot holes, really, which is weird for such a simple story. And it's pretty cliche in a lot of ways, including that especially the one twist is pretty much old hat by now.

At that, though, I liked the twists and felt that they somewhat saved the film, but still it was frustrating overall, because it could have been so much better.

A 6/10 from me.

[–] ferdelance-1 8 years ago

'Beautifully shot and set'. Definitely.
'Could have been so much better'. Absolutely.

I agree with your entire post. I was really looking forward to this one. You know, Clint's son taking the helm on the westerns and the resemblance ... there's no mistaking who his dad is. However, he's not his dad and this film pretty much confirms it!

Aside from the under-explained questions we're left with at the end, the biggest mystery for me is how the hell this got released to the money-paying public that keep the film studios in business. You'd have thought the executives would have watched it and said something like, "Yeah, pretty good so far. Can't wait to see it when it's complete. Away with you now and finish it".

As I mentioned in another thread, the ending just seemed to be rushed, like they'd either written themselves into a corner or ran out of ideas. This could have been a great film. Instead I got the impression that the writers couldn't decide whether they wanted to make a western, a thriller or a horror movie. I just hope they didn't get the idea of leaving the ending open for a sequel. Here's one that won't be watching it!

[–] roofall 8 years ago

Kids, today. Did you want a Tarantino movie, or another cliche western. You'd probably cry about it, too, if it didn't match up to some idea of what you wanted to see on screen.

Of course, it would've been great to have his "Clint Eastwood" expressions lead us down the path of what we thought the movie was going to be, but this might've been better. There are so many good things about the film, the suspense and the ride... I can't waste my time explaining to someone who won't understand.

Danny Glover appearing towards the end... There are big ideas, and small ideas, all brought together interestingly in this DIFFERENT movie. I thought it was great, just not awesome because of the delivery and lines of some of the supporting actors (especially in the beginning, setting up character).

The Indians and how he finds them in his saddle bag... His guns were BURIED at the beginning, he didn't shoot the kid, TWICE. How do you know that the pain of shooting his brother and the war wasn't going away after all the years and he might've been at the end of his insane cycle... Who knows.

It keeps us guessing, like how does the killer follow him around without a horse. There are far too many elements to call the film "boring". What's the matter with you people, go back to Nickelodeon, lol, maybe you're not ready for this yet. ;)

[–] richardpendleton 8 years ago

Garbage.uninvolving scott eastwood should go back to bartending.he has no range no charisma.he looks like his father but that actually hurts him his father was a master of western suspense clint could carry this movie in his sleep scott is getiing carried by this film he brought absolutely nothing to this movie but his dads ressemblance..this would of been better as a parody. If scott eastwood keeps this up his film career is infomercial bound..HE STINKS..AND SO DOES THIS MOVIE.

[–] briscut 7 years ago

Your grammar is a nice analogy of Scott's acting; I see what you did there and applaud you.