GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

amesmonde Dylan Dog comes out of a self imposed semi-retirement to solve a series of deaths that will cause a riff between the living and the undead.Without drawing comparisons to the excellent atmospheric Dellamorte Dellamore (1994) or the comics, Dylan Dog is an interesting monster mash-up in which Kevin Munroe offers some technically impressive effects as Dylan goes from one well dressed location and set to the next. Brandon Routh looks the part and is the archetype hero and does well with Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer's comedy script with it's Columbo-like twists. However, if Blade Runner (1982) has taught us anything it is that voice overs used inappropriately just take you out of the moment. While Donnelly and Oppenheimer try to make it work to give a noir feel it never works to the extent it should as the on screen atmosphere never matches Routh's soothing voice leaving it somewhat redundant. Routh is comfortable in the well staged action scenes, notable is Dylan's zombie sidekick Marcus played by Sam Huntington who generates most of the genuine funny absurdity. Taye Diggs and the great Peter Stormare are among the solid supporting cast.Although it never executes the required dark cutting humour successfully Munroe and the writers deliver some good cross sub-genre characters, body-parts and action setups but considering the budget it still is in the vein of an extended episode of Grimm, Sleepy Hollow or True Blood to name a few.Dylan Dog: Dead of Night is not bad, and it would be good to see Routh in the role again but it is not Dylan Dog. It's an entertaining crowd pleaser.

Argemaluco In the late-80s, I had read good comments (in Fangoria, Comics Scene, Starlog, etc.) about the Italian comic Dylan Dog, but I couldn't read it until the mid-90s, thanks to the North American editions of Dark Horse...and it honestly didn't impress me very much. The combination of horror and humor was moderately likable, but the "paranormal investigator" premise had already become a cliché because of the TV series The X-Files, Millennium and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, not to mention the multiple literary characters belonging to that sub-genre (the comic Hellblazer, the short stories about Harry D'Amour written by Clive Barker, the saga of The Dresden Files, etc.). And already in that time, there was the rumor of a cinematographic adaptation possibly starred by Rupert Everett, on whom artist Tiziano Sclavi was inspired for the Dylan Dog image. The production lasted for more than 10 years in order to materialize itself, until the film Dylan Dog: Dead of Night was finally made. Unfortunately, the result ended up being truly deplorable.The screenplay of Dylan Dog: Dead of Night is a bad pastiche of scenes we have already seen in Underworld, Constantine, Lord of Illusions, Blade, Night Watch and the uncountable TV series which have continued the tradition of The X-Files (such as Special Unit 2 and Fringe). And even leaving that aside, the screenplay of Dylan Dog: Dead of Night feels very boring and unnecessarily confusing.Brandon Routh completely lacks of any credibility, charisma or presence in the leading role, while Anita Briem is genuinely horrible as the femme fatale. Dylan Dog: Dead of Night also fails as an adaptation of the comic, and its visual style looks ugly and "cheap".In other words, Dylan Dog: Dead of Night is atrocious as a supernatural "neo-noir", as a horror film, and as an adaptation of the comic. Don't make the same mistake I did, and avoid wasting your time and your money in this horrible experience.

thepinkrabbit I don't know the comic or anything about this. I didn't even saw a single advertisement for this movie. This movie was just release yesterday in France on DVD and never in theater. The ambiance of the movie is dark, goth, it's most of the time at night. It's not about cheesy romance which is great. I understand people saying it's bad because not as the book. Books adaptation are usually not at all like books they are from so it's normal. Thats a pity it didn't have any advertisement and wasn't even release in theater in most countries especially for such a high budget movie.The scenario is not that great maybe but visual effect, humor, great (and handsome ) actors: for instance Peter Stormare which you can see on movie Spun as a very funny cop, made the movie very entertaining.

Dan Phillips I hate it when the trailers promise a fun, diverting movie, only to be supplanted by a dismal reality. "Dylan Dog" is just such a supplanting.This is far from the worst movie I've ever seen. "Hired Hand" would be in the running for that distinction. What it is, is a sad under-performer. It was a promising premise that was killed in the execution.The premise is a world-weary good guy with a past as a go-between betwixt the monster world and the humans, dragged back into practice by a nefarious plot. That much you get from the trailers. You also get a promise of monsters, fights, and dark humor.What we get is a bad choice for a lead, a bad choice for a supporting actor, and a series of stupid moments punctuated by too few deliveries on the promise of the premise.Brandon Routh is a good-looking, fit feller who doesn't act much, at least not in this movie. His way of delivering "world-weary" is to speak in monotone and not smile as much. Yawn.But I'd take that over his frenetic sidekick, played by the American "Being Human's" Sam Huntington. Recognizing him in the trailers had added to my anticipation of the movie, because he was some fun in the series. I discovered that little doses of Huntington may work, but 108 minutes really doesn't.Every time Huntington's Marcus opened his mouth, the movie ground to a halt. Sheer obnoxiousness. I kept asking myself, "Why is he even in this scene? Why does Dog even have him there?" With only the exception of digging them out of the crypt (after a lot of time-stopping whining), when there IS a stated rationale, the character balks, and that in the most annoying way conceivable to man.The only people who have any fun with their roles and bring any life to the movie are Taye Diggs as Vargas the vampire, and Marco St. John as Borelli, along with some fun zombie cameos. But they're not enough to save the flick from the leads and the plot and the wretched character non-development.For instance, the female lead starts off opening the movie in a fun, promising scene. But her father (who she is supposed to seem to love) is gruesomely murdered, and her reaction is really not to react. No horror, no grief, nothing. First Bad Sign of bad things to come.Then there is just stupidity on stupidity, stupid risks and stupid moves. I'll suspend belief to enjoy a movie, but don't insult me. This movie insults me. For instance: is it a good idea actually to see what you're shooting at, before you empty your gun? I think so. Mostly, Dog thinks so - except in a climactic scene.And finally, I guess viewers haven't even bothered to mention continuity stupidities. Dog is being sealed (we guess, though the lid isn't that heavy and is never seen to be sealed) in a crypt/grave. Routh is "acting" by hanging his head. But someone knew that was boring and undramatic, so they looped him screaming "Vaaaarrrrgaaaasssss!" — as he still see his head hanging motionless (and silent) in the background. Then the vampires slide the lid on over him — and the next shot shows Dog, STILL with his head hanging in emotionless boringness.In conclusion: not the worst movie ever, but a big disappointment. In reviewing it, I talked myself out of a 4 and into a 3.