CommentsXp Best movie ever!

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

kartonpena I am a huge Dylan Dog fan. I started reading the comics since I was 10, and if anyone who is a DD fan is considering watching this film, don't do it. Just don't. Do yourself a huge favor and don't. There is no Gruco, there is no inspector Bloch, and the story is set not in London, but in New Orleans. Oh, and even the color and type of his car is wrong. For crying out loud it's like they were trying to do everything wrong. I have no idea how Sclavi didn't put veto on this.Everything about this film is wrong. They succeeded in ruining a perfect story.

nomdesouris-1 To be fair, if this film had been released twenty years earlier, I'd be quite fond of it. But that's the point - it's nearly 30 years past its sell-by date. Wikipedia informs me that the comic book upon which it is based was published in 1986 - i.e. a few years after the iconic 'American Werewolf In London' movie, and 6 years before Joss Whedon's seminal'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. As such, the characterisation, plot twists etc are very much of its time.Unfortunately, this movie was released in 2010. That means its audience is liable to be familiar with not just Buffy and AWIL but also more recent iterations of the comedy/horror/drama genre such as 'Blade', 'True Blood', 'Scream', 'The Vampire Diaries', 'Supernatural' etc etc. If you want to use a source text that's several decades out of date, in a genre that has thrived in the intervening time, then you need to bring your A Game as a writer, and demonstrate that you're aware of what's gone before, and that you've got something fresh to bring to the table.I cannot help thinking that this film was purely churned out because the rights holder, whoever they may be, realised that they'd got the rights to something involving vampires and was hoping to jump on the Twilight bandwagon. (Not that this has anything in common with Twilight beyond vampires, but for the life of me I can't imagine what possessed anyone to cough up the money to make this movie other than that faint hope of cashing in on the zeitgeist.) Alas, the comedy is leaden, the writing is witless, stilted and painfully out of date, and the entire premise (I'm trying to be cagey but this bit might be countered a trifle SPOILERY) is ultimately bogged down in tired misogynistic tropes.The one good think I can say about it is that Sam Huntingdon, in a supporting role, makes the most of the shoddy material he's given. That's always the sign of a good actor - when they can take duff writing and still make it enjoyable to watch. I felt really quite sorry for him, being stuck in such a lacklustre production, when he's evidently a pretty capable actor.If you stumble across this late at night on TV, you may find it cheesily enjoyable. If, on the other hand, you've paid cold hard cash for it in a movie theatre, you would be forgiven for feeling that you're due a refund.

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.

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.