bullseyestunts
Lifetime Total
1,000+
Lifetime Name
25+
Lifetime Filmo
1,000+
Lifetime Plot
5+
Lifetime Bio
1+
Lifetime Trivia
5+
Lifetime Title
10+
Lifetime Image
150+
IMDb Member
23 years
Reviews
Diablo (2015)
Three Stars for 3 good things in this film
I'll start by stating that I love Westerns and will take the time to watch one when ever I get the chance, and a good one, over and over again.
Westerns are expensive to produce and have a limited audience these days, so if your going to do one, it had better be good.
Keep in mind, I'm picky, especially when it comes to Westerns and period films, and some of things I point out, others may not notice or it may not bother them.
WARNING!!!
This will be a bit long and most definitely have some spoilers along the way.
1. The scenery and cinematography is beautiful, thanks to the director of photography Dean Cundey, and it helped me hang in there to the bitter end.
2. The character of Ezra played by Walton Goggins is exactly what this film needed more of.
3. It got financed which makes me happy that Westerns are not dead.
Now, I'm guessing the reason it got financed started with director Lawrence Roeck's relationship with the Eastwood family which helped him secure his lead Scott Eastwood, who in turn helped him secure the other financially recognizable names like Danny Glover, Walton Goggins, Camilla Belle, Adam Beach, Tai Ma, Joaquim De Almeida and Danny Glover.
I'm not sure what the budget was, but it wasn't enough to make this what it needed to be.
It made me start to ask questions from the opening scene! (Which is never good)
So if someone just took your wife on horseback and is riding off into the darkness of the night, would you be shooting at them? Personally I'd be afraid I might hit her! I guess the the thought process there was, If I can't have her nobody can!
The dialogue needed more work and in my opinion less for the lead would have made him more mysterious, which never hurts in a film like this. So much exposition to have the other actors feed the audience the story with their dialogue.
The neighbors come out of nowhere in the middle of the night moments after the incident starts as if they live less than a block away. He asks where's Elisabeth, where is your wife. Then the next morning he states that he hasn't met his wife yet, but I hope you get her back. Seemed strange and just dialogue for the sake of talking.
No tracking! By that I mean there's not one moment where we see the lead character who is chasing the bad guys from Colorado down into New Mexico, even look down at the trail for tracks to see which way they've gone. He just rides and rides and rides as if he knows where they are heading.
He does spot some blood on a branch eventually but by then it seems we've gone from fall to winter like he's been on the trail for weeks. Anyone still bleeding would have bled to death by now.
Then veteran character actor Joaquim De Almeida is only in one scene in which he dies before barely uttering a word! Such a waste of an incredible actor!
Eastwood's character takes two silver coins off him, but leaves his ammo belt full of ammo on his dead body. Something much more valuable in a time like that than two silver coins.
The tack, meaning the bridle on his horse, his saddle, the blanket, etc. They all look brand new out of a modern day Western shop. Come on, at least age it down and rough it up a bit. Help us believe!
He finally spots them through his telescope, but then when he's on their trail after that, there's no trail! He's not following any tracks. He's just wondering through the snow until someone finally shoots at him and then he finally sees some tracks.
At least he tied his horse to a tree and didn't just drop the reins to the ground like so many characters in Western films. Why is this important? If your horse got away from you in those days it could mean the difference between life and death! If you had to dismount you would either hang on and lead the horse with you or definitely tie it up to something.
He builds a fire at night while chasing someone he's hoping to sneak up on. Not a good way to stay hidden.
Builds one during the day as well to provide smoke for them to see.
Hair and make up team, come on, let a guy get a bit dirty and messy over time. Scott Eastwood looks like he's just come out of a beauty salon after being on the trail for weeks, riding hard, being shot at, wearing a hat. (Hello! Hat head)
When he confronts a young native boy who shot some arrows at him, no dialogue would have been better than, "How do you like that?" and "That wasn't very nice!"
Once he and his horse are shot and down the movie should be over as the Mexican's would have moved in and finished him off.
Moments after he's shot in the left shoulder he's carrying his saddle bags with his left arm, no problem.
And I almost fell off the couch laughing when Scott Eastwood told Danny Glover's character, "Could use a proper saddle" then he adds, "For my horse". What? Was the writer, director or the producers worried the audience wouldn't know who the saddle was for? Maybe he was going to wear it himself!
Poor Danny Glover's dialogue was nothing but exposition.
"After all these years your still torturing yourself after accidentally shooting your brother."
Wow! Did that ever come out of left field! Let's just spew his characters history and spell it all out whether it's relatable to the scene or not, just to get it out on the table real quick for the audience to have some back story on Eastwood's confused character.
At least Glover got to use his chops in a great scene with Goggins.
His old log cabin was certainly well appointed and super clean, unlike anything in the old west. Not very realistic for an older ethnically challenged veteran of the civil war back in that time.
Even some of the beautiful cinematography can't save certain scenes, like when an ominous beautifully shot thunderstorm rolls in but doesn't pay off as there is not a drop of rain or a whisper of wind to up the stakes for the rest of the scene.
We finally get to see our leading lady, 1 hour into the film!
When Eastwood stands on a riverbank in the wide open after confronting whom we believe to be his wife and no one, draws a gun or even tries to shoot at him made me want to shut it off there, sadly.
But I hung in there just to watch future gun battles get even more ridiculous.
When he chases the Mexicans and his wife back to their compound (which doesn't look Mexican at all) he turns his horse lose and strides right into the middle of the compound. Everyone has taken cover, but no one shoots him, at least not until they decide to step out from their hiding places to provide him with an easier target.
They do shoot at him eventually, and even with a rifle, but never even come close, but he, on the other hand can hit running targets, no problema!
There's shooters on roof tops out on the middle of the roof, no cover. Guys come out of hiding and run across the yard to provide targets.
It's like he paid two tokens at the carnival to come play at the shooting gallery and win a stuffed toy.
Finally someone hits Eastwood's characteristic the leg! Of course while he's down, the shooter lowers his gun and walks straight towards him so that Eastwood can have time to recover, turn back and shoot his assailant.
Eastwood, without so much as a limp strides over and toys with his victim while holding him down with the leg he just got shot in. Big hole! But not bleeding. He spends what feels like 30 minutes torturing and toying with his victim, eventually cutting his throat and of course no one fires a single shot at him. Wouldn't want to disturb the bad guy while he's focusing on being the bad guy!
Once in the house, he sees a shadow on the wall of someone moving in another room, he shoots low through the wall, knee height at best and the person falls out of a doorway into the hall from a standing position. I guess he'd died instantly from a knee wound.
Then it just goes from bad to worse to finish off this film, which should have and could have been good.
Poor Camilla Belle's dialogue starts straight as total exposition. "Why are you doing this? Guillermo is my husband." "What you wanted was a fantasy, how many other woman have you done this too?" Then it almost turns into a love seen until, unnoticed by Eastwood, she pulls one of his pistols and shoots him in the stomach, which phases him no worse than a bad case of gas.
Which she aptly follows up with "Get out of my house". Then proceeds to protect him from being shot by her husband when they walk out of the room together. She then proceeds to protect her husband, who with a good dose of machismo, pushes her away.
The ensuing point blank Mexican stand off is so ridiculous based on the fact that the husband never fires!
But it gets better, let's just have Eastwood fire and then cut to the title of the film! Finished, that's it, goodbye, let the credits roll!
I wanted to like it, I really did, but just couldn't.
I wish them all the best on their next one.
Westerns are expensive to produce and have a limited audience these days, so if your going to do one, it had better be good.
Keep in mind, I'm picky, especially when it comes to Westerns and period films, and some of things I point out, others may not notice or it may not bother them.
WARNING!!!
This will be a bit long and most definitely have some spoilers along the way.
1. The scenery and cinematography is beautiful, thanks to the director of photography Dean Cundey, and it helped me hang in there to the bitter end.
2. The character of Ezra played by Walton Goggins is exactly what this film needed more of.
3. It got financed which makes me happy that Westerns are not dead.
Now, I'm guessing the reason it got financed started with director Lawrence Roeck's relationship with the Eastwood family which helped him secure his lead Scott Eastwood, who in turn helped him secure the other financially recognizable names like Danny Glover, Walton Goggins, Camilla Belle, Adam Beach, Tai Ma, Joaquim De Almeida and Danny Glover.
I'm not sure what the budget was, but it wasn't enough to make this what it needed to be.
It made me start to ask questions from the opening scene! (Which is never good)
So if someone just took your wife on horseback and is riding off into the darkness of the night, would you be shooting at them? Personally I'd be afraid I might hit her! I guess the the thought process there was, If I can't have her nobody can!
The dialogue needed more work and in my opinion less for the lead would have made him more mysterious, which never hurts in a film like this. So much exposition to have the other actors feed the audience the story with their dialogue.
The neighbors come out of nowhere in the middle of the night moments after the incident starts as if they live less than a block away. He asks where's Elisabeth, where is your wife. Then the next morning he states that he hasn't met his wife yet, but I hope you get her back. Seemed strange and just dialogue for the sake of talking.
No tracking! By that I mean there's not one moment where we see the lead character who is chasing the bad guys from Colorado down into New Mexico, even look down at the trail for tracks to see which way they've gone. He just rides and rides and rides as if he knows where they are heading.
He does spot some blood on a branch eventually but by then it seems we've gone from fall to winter like he's been on the trail for weeks. Anyone still bleeding would have bled to death by now.
Then veteran character actor Joaquim De Almeida is only in one scene in which he dies before barely uttering a word! Such a waste of an incredible actor!
Eastwood's character takes two silver coins off him, but leaves his ammo belt full of ammo on his dead body. Something much more valuable in a time like that than two silver coins.
The tack, meaning the bridle on his horse, his saddle, the blanket, etc. They all look brand new out of a modern day Western shop. Come on, at least age it down and rough it up a bit. Help us believe!
He finally spots them through his telescope, but then when he's on their trail after that, there's no trail! He's not following any tracks. He's just wondering through the snow until someone finally shoots at him and then he finally sees some tracks.
At least he tied his horse to a tree and didn't just drop the reins to the ground like so many characters in Western films. Why is this important? If your horse got away from you in those days it could mean the difference between life and death! If you had to dismount you would either hang on and lead the horse with you or definitely tie it up to something.
He builds a fire at night while chasing someone he's hoping to sneak up on. Not a good way to stay hidden.
Builds one during the day as well to provide smoke for them to see.
Hair and make up team, come on, let a guy get a bit dirty and messy over time. Scott Eastwood looks like he's just come out of a beauty salon after being on the trail for weeks, riding hard, being shot at, wearing a hat. (Hello! Hat head)
When he confronts a young native boy who shot some arrows at him, no dialogue would have been better than, "How do you like that?" and "That wasn't very nice!"
Once he and his horse are shot and down the movie should be over as the Mexican's would have moved in and finished him off.
Moments after he's shot in the left shoulder he's carrying his saddle bags with his left arm, no problem.
And I almost fell off the couch laughing when Scott Eastwood told Danny Glover's character, "Could use a proper saddle" then he adds, "For my horse". What? Was the writer, director or the producers worried the audience wouldn't know who the saddle was for? Maybe he was going to wear it himself!
Poor Danny Glover's dialogue was nothing but exposition.
"After all these years your still torturing yourself after accidentally shooting your brother."
Wow! Did that ever come out of left field! Let's just spew his characters history and spell it all out whether it's relatable to the scene or not, just to get it out on the table real quick for the audience to have some back story on Eastwood's confused character.
At least Glover got to use his chops in a great scene with Goggins.
His old log cabin was certainly well appointed and super clean, unlike anything in the old west. Not very realistic for an older ethnically challenged veteran of the civil war back in that time.
Even some of the beautiful cinematography can't save certain scenes, like when an ominous beautifully shot thunderstorm rolls in but doesn't pay off as there is not a drop of rain or a whisper of wind to up the stakes for the rest of the scene.
We finally get to see our leading lady, 1 hour into the film!
When Eastwood stands on a riverbank in the wide open after confronting whom we believe to be his wife and no one, draws a gun or even tries to shoot at him made me want to shut it off there, sadly.
But I hung in there just to watch future gun battles get even more ridiculous.
When he chases the Mexicans and his wife back to their compound (which doesn't look Mexican at all) he turns his horse lose and strides right into the middle of the compound. Everyone has taken cover, but no one shoots him, at least not until they decide to step out from their hiding places to provide him with an easier target.
They do shoot at him eventually, and even with a rifle, but never even come close, but he, on the other hand can hit running targets, no problema!
There's shooters on roof tops out on the middle of the roof, no cover. Guys come out of hiding and run across the yard to provide targets.
It's like he paid two tokens at the carnival to come play at the shooting gallery and win a stuffed toy.
Finally someone hits Eastwood's characteristic the leg! Of course while he's down, the shooter lowers his gun and walks straight towards him so that Eastwood can have time to recover, turn back and shoot his assailant.
Eastwood, without so much as a limp strides over and toys with his victim while holding him down with the leg he just got shot in. Big hole! But not bleeding. He spends what feels like 30 minutes torturing and toying with his victim, eventually cutting his throat and of course no one fires a single shot at him. Wouldn't want to disturb the bad guy while he's focusing on being the bad guy!
Once in the house, he sees a shadow on the wall of someone moving in another room, he shoots low through the wall, knee height at best and the person falls out of a doorway into the hall from a standing position. I guess he'd died instantly from a knee wound.
Then it just goes from bad to worse to finish off this film, which should have and could have been good.
Poor Camilla Belle's dialogue starts straight as total exposition. "Why are you doing this? Guillermo is my husband." "What you wanted was a fantasy, how many other woman have you done this too?" Then it almost turns into a love seen until, unnoticed by Eastwood, she pulls one of his pistols and shoots him in the stomach, which phases him no worse than a bad case of gas.
Which she aptly follows up with "Get out of my house". Then proceeds to protect him from being shot by her husband when they walk out of the room together. She then proceeds to protect her husband, who with a good dose of machismo, pushes her away.
The ensuing point blank Mexican stand off is so ridiculous based on the fact that the husband never fires!
But it gets better, let's just have Eastwood fire and then cut to the title of the film! Finished, that's it, goodbye, let the credits roll!
I wanted to like it, I really did, but just couldn't.
I wish them all the best on their next one.
Brave (2007)
New "International version" is better
I just watched the new "International version" of the film. I must say that it is an improvement over the original Thai version which I watched previously. It should work better for the international audience. I think Ong-Bak was even re-cut for the US. Most of the humor and unnecessary dialogue has been removed. This version seems to place more emphasis on the fighting which really is the strong point of this film. The script is still weak in parts. Then again, what Thai action film doesn't have script deficiencies?! Overall, I'd say the International version is an improvement and it is not a bad little film. Hope to see it on video shelves in the US one day.