Diablo

I love westerns, but by 2016, it can be genuinely hard to bring something new to the genre. To any genre really. It's tough. So what do you say about 2015's Diablo? It's a western with some potential to be pretty decent...but it just ISN'T. It's not very good, but there is a twist. A good twist. What's your take though? Is that twist enough to save an otherwise mediocre-to-bad movie?

It's 1872 in the Colorado Territory and a young rancher, Jackson (Scott Eastwood), is woken in the dead of night. His home, his barn, his corrals are on fire, and he sees three men riding away to the south with his wife. He rides out in the morning having to make up time and miles on the trail, all with the hope of getting his wife back and exacting revenge on the men who kidnapped her. Nothing will come easy though in the pursuit as Jackson meets all sorts of obstacles though. His biggest obstacle? That could be himself as his violent past threatens to tear him apart before he can catch up and save his wife. Can he somehow do it?

As I write today's western review, I check the count and see that I've written 245 western reviews since starting my movie review blog. I've been in a good place lately, watching and re-watching westerns as quick as I could. So while this western from director/writer Lawrence Roeck didn't get a theatrical release (that I'm aware of), I had to give it a shot. The verdict is pretty straightforward. Though there's potential, it simply isn't very good. I'll give westerns the benefit of the doubt for the most part but this one has too many holes.

What's most disappointing is that Roeck and his crew are clearly fans of the genre. Filmed in Alberta, Canada, 'Diablo' is a beautiful-looking film. This isn't the sun-drenched desert vistas you might expect in a western. This is the snow-capped mountains, the frigid air, the bundled-up cowboys so that's pretty cool, an interesting change of pace. The shots of Eastwood's Jackson riding through the mountains, across a snowy ridge, cutting across the horizon, they're gorgeous...at first. The movie's only 82 minutes long, and I'm betting 30 minutes are simply establishing shots of a rider riding. Helicopter shots, overhead shots, from the side, from the other side, from behind, straight-on....oh my goodness. It's repetitive and repetitive and repetitive. The same for the musical score. It's appropriate but it tries to be too big and epic-based when the story just doesn't call for it. 'Diablo' knows and respects the western genre but can't quite get there.

Then there's the twist. Looking back on it and the build-up, there are hints as to what's coming. I didn't pick up on them at the time. Either they're too subtle or I just take the western at face value too much (See it and you'll understand my issue; read 'dumbness.') Reading some message boards, some other critics' reviews, the twist is pretty divisive; love it or hate it. For me, it took me by surprise completely. I didn't see it coming. I thought it worked...but it is underutilized. No spoilers, but the reveal comes at the hour-mark after a painfully slow first hour. Then when we should be reveling in the reveal, the movie ends 15 minutes later. The credits roll at the 77-minute mark. We waste so much time getting to that point that it feels completely -- no check that, COMPLETELY -- wasted. I'll give credit where it's due, and the final scene ends on a creepy shocker, but again, it is almost all potential.

The son of the legendary Clint Eastwood (still the coolest), Scott Eastwood has been working in film and television since 2006 and he seems to be taking off a bit in the star department. He's still developing though as an actor and struggles at times when he doesn't get any help from the script. Eastwood does show his skill though, but in a short movie with so many moving pieces, he kinda gets lost in the shuffle. Who else to look for? Some cool names, some recognizable faces including Walton Goggins, Danny Glover, Tzi Ma, Camilla Belle, Jose Zuniga, Adam Beach and Joaquim de Almeida as some folks who pop up along the trail. Most aren't around for more than a scene or two, but it is cool to see them in a western story. Just wish the source material was a little stronger.

Too bad in the end. With some tweaks here and a fleshed-out story there, we're talking a pretty decent little flick. There's just too many holes here. A short movie is almost unbearably slow, the dialogue is some of the most stilted I've ever heard, and a potentially really cool twist never gets a chance to take off. I'll ever so slightly recommend it for the gimmick, for that twist, but other than that, probably for diehard western fans only.

Diablo (2015): * 1/2 /****

Dollar for the Dead

In the mid to late 1990s, TNT aired a slew of made-for-TV historical movies that resonated well with audiences. A trio starred Tom Selleck, a few featured famous Indian chiefs, and a couple were surprisingly violent entries into the western genre. As a tribute to the spaghetti western genre, here we go with 1998's Dollar for the Dead.

It's in the American Southwest along the Rio Grande in the years following the Civil War, and a one-legged former Confederate soldier, Dooley (William Forsythe), is on a mission. He meets a mysterious, quiet gunman (Emilio Estevez) in a saloon and enlists his help in his dangerous mission. What is it exactly? Late in the Civil War, a Confederate payroll disappeared somewhere in Mexico, and one officer knew the location. A map was drawn across four different gun holsters, each of those given to a different man. Dooley has one, and he knows where to find the others. Somewhere in Mexico $500,000 in gold awaits whoever finds it. There's a problem though; Dooley and the gunman aren't alone. A man named Reager (NFL star Howie Long) and a small army of gunmen are riding with him to get their hands on the gunman. That's just the start though because many more are involved, especially with so much gold on the line.

Does that basic story sound familiar? Any fan of westerns/spaghetti westerns out there should hear alarm bells. This TNT western from director Gene Quintano borrows quite liberally from Sergio Leone's classic The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Running 94 minutes, 'Dollar' is a homage, a tribute to the entire spaghetti western genre. The music from George S. Clinton sounds exactly like an Ennio Morricone soundtrack (listen to a sample HERE), and the movie was even shot on location in Almeria where hundreds of spaghetti westerns were filmed in the 1960s/1970s. Certain scenes are lifted almost entirely from classic spaghettis, paying tribute to everything from GBU to Companeros, Once Upon a Time in the West to For a Few Dollars More and countless others. It does it not to duplicate the success and popularity, but to genuinely pay tribute. If it seems too goofy, so be it, it's fun from beginning to end.

Playing a tweaked version of the Man with No Name, Estevez does a solid job as the main character, listed in the credits simply as 'Cowboy.' He wears a wide, flat-brimmed hat, a knee-length duster jacket and favors two pistols in his belt. Cowboy is a man of few words, his steely-eyed gaze intimidating anyone across from him in a gun duel. Like most spaghetti western antiheroes, Estevez is given a checkered, tortured past. Unlike most antiheroes, his backstory is also surprisingly sympathetic if somewhat predictable. I liked the dynamic between Cowboy and Dooley, unlikely partners in a do-or-die deal. At certain points, they reminded me of Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef in For a Few Dollars More, young and old working together for the huge payday. Regardless, I liked Estevez a lot.

Beyond the mysterious cowboy though, there's a lot going on in general. Howie Long is similarly mysterious as Reager, the gunman built like a bear with revenge on his mind. Not quite a good guy, not quite a bad guy. Jordi Molla plays a Mexican Federale captain with a garrison nearby the hidden gold. He knows it's somewhere close but doesn't quite know where it is. Jonathan Banks is Colonel Skinner, a blood-seeking Union officer with a company of Union cavalry at his side. Ed Lauter plays Colby, a former comrade of Dooley's and fellow owner of a holster, now wasting away in a Mexican jail. Joaquim de Almeida plays a familiar part as Friar Ramon, the town priest looking out for his villagers as the gold seekers close in for the treasure. The characters are stock characters any western fans should recognize -- without much in the way of background or motivation -- but just go along for the ride.

In the style and vein of the spaghetti westerns, fans will no doubt appreciate the action here. No, that's not fair. The ridiculous amount of action. Now that said, it's goofy looking and cliched action, but it's there. The shootouts are an odd mix of spaghetti western, Hong Kong style in the John Woo vein, and some gymnastics too. At one point, Estevez's Cowboy actually shoots out the floor under him, spinning around firing into the ground. He has to fire at least 50 shots from 2 pistols without reloading. Bad guys can't hit the good guys (by a long shot), good guys hit everything they aim at, and whenever someone is actually shot, they fly back 30 feet like they've been hit by a semi-truck. Now it may seem like this is hyper-critical, but it isn't. It's goofy in its entertaining quality.

The best is saved for the finale at what looks like the ruined remains of the mountain fortress from El Condor. Anyone and everyone we've been introduced to up to this point converge on the hidden gold cache in an epic shootout that racks up an impressive body count. Oh, and in a nod to Sergio Corbucci's Django, Forsythe's Dooley unveils a gatling gun he's been hiding in a wooden coffin, and he just unloads on his countless targets below. A fun ending to a fun movie.

Dollar for the Dead (1998): ***/****

Che: Part II

So where were we? Ah, yes, wrapping up director Steven Soderbergh's two-part historical epic about infamous revolutionary Che Guevara. My issues with 2008's Che: Part II are much the same as the ones I had with the first part. Interesting to watch, but in deciding not to take sides or pick a message, it remains a cold, even heartless movie.

It is 1965, six years since the successful Cuban Revolution overthrew the dictator and his government, and Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (Benicio Del Toro) is heading to Bolivia. After failed revolutionary ventures in Venezuela and the Congo, Guevara now hopes to lead another revolution, getting the poor lower class to depose a government that has become a military dictatorship. Driven by his ideals and beliefs from deep inside, Che starts from the ground up with a small group of like-minded fighters. Nothing comes easy though, and the walls begin to close in on Che and his followers.

Having watched Soderbergh's epic -- a total of 4 hours and 30 minutes -- I came away both impressed and disappointed. As moviegoers, we just don't see ventures like this anymore in films (in theaters at least). Soderbergh has made a true epic, one in principle at least that is reminiscent of such epics from the 1950s and 1960s. Principle and little else though unfortunately. Positives aside, I think Soderbergh made a fatal flaw in not choosing to take a side...even if it was a measured attempt. The fly-on-the-wall, quasi-documentary style is effective to a point, but not nearly as effective as it could have been. The story moves along from date to date (thanks to an abundance of title cards), but it feels like major chunks are missing.

This will sound ridiculous, but I've never seen a movie this long (Che: Part I and II) that had so little going on. It can be difficult to sit through some of these slow-moving portions, and there's plenty. Repetitious comes to mind. Countless shots of Che's followers traversing through the jungle, talking at their night camps, quick firefights with the Bolivian army. This is where a message would have been helpful. We know Che's objective; defeat the government, leading an uprising that will unite the Bolivian people. Other than a few brief asides as we meet some Bolivian peasants, the focus is on Che's efforts. I feel like I'm not doing a great job explaining myself, and my frustration is getting the best of me so I'm moving along.

What does work? The darkness. The sense of doom hovering over Che. Part I had some humorous -- if dark -- moments, but there is none of that here. Also from the word 'Go,' we see that Che's Bolivian efforts will go for naught. His men argue over food, over working rather than fighting, and that the Bolivian people will not back him. Seeing him try to counter and combat those efforts produces some of the more dramatic moments. Del Toro again is solid as Che. It's such a quiet, understated performance that it's hard to judge to harshly or too glowingly. The film is a visual stunner, contrasting the deep, vivid colors of the towns and villages with the harsh, washed-out feel of the mountains. Alberto Iglesias' score is again a winner, a bright spot in the slower moments.

Beyond Del Toro though, no one stands out in the supporting cast. Demian Bichir returns briefly as Fidel Castro as does Catalina Sandino Moreno as Alieda, Che's wife, and Rodrigo Santoro as Raul, Fidel's brother. As far as Che's followers go, the movie swings and misses. We hear countless names but learn nothing about any of them. They're the same sea of faces covered by unkempt facial hair and green uniforms and caps. They make no impact, lessening any degree of effectiveness the movie is shooting for when they are eventually killed. Franka Potente plays Tania, a loyal follower of Che's, while Joaquim de Almeida plays Bolivian president/dictator Rene Barrientos. Jordi Molla and Yul Vazquez are effective in small parts as officers leading the hunt for Che. Also look for Lou Diamond Phillips and Matt Damon in small, one-scene parts.

A ton of potential here, especially considering Soderbergh takes an honest, un-opinionated look at the life and death of such a divisive individual as Che Guevara. I came away feeling untouched though. When Che is finally captured and executed, the scene had no emotional impact on me in the least. Do I feel for him? Do I hate him? Instead, there's nothing, and that's never a good sign. I come away disappointed. I wanted to enjoy these more, but with no message or objective, we get four-plus hours of tedium. There are positives, but you have to find them amongst a sea of negatives.

Che: Part Two <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****