Dylan Dog: Dead of Night Reviews
I don't know anything about the comicbook but its quite old (1986), so I can't say for sure but I do believe this comic may have given rise to other such characters and franchises like 'Hellboy', 'Underworld' and probably others. The problem is they have left this adaptation too long and missed the boat. This a real mix of many cool ideas and the first to spring to mind was 'Van Helsing'. DD is very much a monster mash with everything from vamps, werewolves, zombies, ghouls and demons. Add to this a neat little touch of black humour with zombie sub plots involving zombie support groups complete with flyers and a zombie bodyshop where the undead go to fix themselves up. Clever touches like that make this film fun to watch.
Now the first 30 minutes of this film is dull I can't lie, I was getting bored as nothing was happening. The concept is clearly going for an old detective film with narration from Dylan as he investigates clues, its nice and gives the film a touch of class but ultimately its kinda dull too.
Things start to spice up as creatures of the night come into play and the plot thickens, we discover a huge uber zombie is killing folk and there's a battle going on between certain humans and the undead ergo...a bit like 'Underworld'.
The problem is the film does get more enjoyable but you just can't help but relate everything to many other films, some I've already mentioned. You feel as if you've seen this all before (which you kinda have) and you know what's gonna happen. The other problem is the effects aren't all that great on the werewolves, the vamps don't look anything new with their facial design (think 'Lost Boys' or 'From Dusk Till Dawn') and of course zombies will always look the same.
There is a quite lovely piece of makeup/prosthetic work at the finale where baddie vamp leader Vargas transforms into a mega demon of some kind, looks absolutely fantastic but again it also looks identical to Darkness from 'Legend' or Marcus from 'Underworld 2' plus his appearance is a total anti-climax. In short the CGI work isn't the best and neither are the stunts truthfully, blood and gore is minimal which is fine but makeup is probably the winner over CGI here. The CGI is about on par with the first 'Underworld' flick which is obviously dated.
There is a hell of a lot of imagination going on here which is terrific and as this character came about in 86 I'm sure he came before much of what we already know in terms of night creature mythology. Had this been made before a lot of well known films then I'm sure it would have received a much better reception and may well have be known as a semi cult classic like such films as 'Blade' and 'Underworld'. Its a shame as despite the large amount of monsters all fighting for screen time the film doesn't feel clustered and it is nicely done with good humour and a nice dark film noir detective angle. The zombie sub plots are easily the best for plus points in terms of originality (almost).
If you try not to compare this film to others its good fun, with better CGI work I wouldn't mind a sequel as Routh as Dylan is a likeable character who isn't over the top and arrogant. I did enjoy the monster mash, shame they had to include the always cliched and now over used martial arts fighting weapon clad female lead. Have her as a hardass sure but lets not go down the boring Milla Jovovich route again please, no need for that in the sequel...if there is one.
Nate's Grade: D
Director: Kevin Munroe
Summary: Paranormal investigator Dylan Dog unearths secrets about the undead in New Orleans with the help of his sidekick, zombie Marcus, in this supernatural mystery based on the internationally best-selling Italian comic book series.
My Thoughts: "The movie was honestly a bit boring for me. I actually fell asleep more then once while watching. I am not sure if it's the character's that are all wrong or if it's just Brandon Routh's acting that is bad. I just haven't really cared for him in any of the films I've seen him in. Maybe it's the roles he's taken? I'm thinking it's more his acting. Sam Huntington on the other hand is an actor I love and think is quite funny and he's the only one worth watching in this film. The movie was listed as a Horror Film.... WHAT? Where was the horror? I thought I would get a few scary flicks in this month since it's the time of the year to get your scare on. But there is nothing scary about this film but it's plot and acting. A big disappointment for me. I haven't read the comics so I can not give my opinion if the film does them justice. But if you're a fan of the comics, that would be the only reason I could think of for you to see this movie."
Not bad of a movie. This was a cool but slow movie based on a comic book. It has a more or less decent story which at times bored me and other times entertained. While Brandon Routh has a limited acting range, his physique actually suited him fine here and basically that was all that mattered, since you aren't going to remember much about his rather bland performance. Don't expect this monster squad outing to be too cerebral. It's filled with corny one liners involving various body parts, and in essence is a poor man's cousin to Men in Black, replacing aliens in our midst with that of monsters roaming around. If only it had stuck more faithfully to its source, then it could have been something quite unique.This is probably the only time I'll watch this movie, is just one of those movies you only see once because it's not worth it watching it more than once.
Tiziano Sclavi's wildly popular Italian comic book gets the big screen treatment in this feature starring Brandon Routh as the eponymous paranormal investigator. When things go bump in the night, Dylan Dog (Routh) is never far behind. Dylan's never met a monster that he couldn't defeat, but when word gets out that supernatural war is brewing in New Orleans, he realizes the stakes have just been raised. Zombies, vampires and werewolves are about to go to battle, and the only thing that can stop them is an ancient relic. When the creatures of the night come out to play, Dylan Dog is the only one standing between mankind, and a nightmarish new reality.
In Dylan Dog, we definitely see his charm and comedic abilities. But as much as I wanted to like this flick, it falls short.
Routh's Superman fell short of expectation due to audience indifference - yet another recap of his origin, Lex Luthor AGAIN, and superbaby... A good film, but what faults it had were in the writing, not the acting (okay, maybe Bosworth). The same is true here. Routh is fun, and could have carried a solid flick, but the writing is lacking, the comic relief a little too over-the-top, the directing sloppy, and the special effects and monster makeup look like something from a television pilot. Even the film stock seemed to be garbage, as several scenes were overly grainy and blurry.
All in all, it's a decent distraction in a late-night-cable-movie sort of way, and a good showcase for Routh to keep showing he's more than just Superman. It's just not the film it could have been.
"Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" starts badly and ends awkwardly with a denouement that does not really make a whole lot of sense. In between there is not a half bad movie that while not as good as an average episode of either "Grimm" or "Lost Girl," still manages a decent amount of world building. It is neat what it does with New Orleans but it was not necessary to set it there.(One question: What did the undead do during Katrina? Or am I better off not knowing?) And I especially liked the look into zombie culture, with the comic relief neatly offsetting some of the dourness. While Brandon Routh, whose bland charm mixes badly with the attempt to do hard boiled noir, is badly miscast, at least, Taye Diggs is having fun.
There are so many problems with "Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" on first sight; one of them being the PG-13 rating. Can you truly make a successful horror comedy with such a rating? I mean, Sam Raimi did it very well with "Drag Me to Hell", but that's Raimi we're talking about. He is a master of the horror comedy; and it was a return to form. But "Dylan Dog", an adaptation of the long-running Italian comic-book series of the same name, is so bland and contains nothing but talentless, low-budget devotion. I'm sure it was made with good intentions, but man, who knew good-natured filmmaking could be so boring?
I suppose my problem isn't the fact that the filmmakers weren't daring. The low-budget kind of shows in the action sequences and special effects, thus, making the film with the chosen director attached was a poor decision. The film has a semi-appealing cast headed by Brandon Routh, who just last year starred in the totally-radical-and-awesome "Scott Pilgrim VS. The World". There, he was given material that was seemingly written for him. He was over-the-top in a good, almost charming way; here, he's just mediocre...at best.
Where do I begin in my review for what is without-a-doubt one of the worst films of 2011? Oh yes, I'll start with the story. Private detective of the paranormal Dylan Dog (Routh) is forced out of retirement after a werewolf kills a young woman's father, which could be the beginning of a fued between the living, the dead, the furry, and the creatures of the night (AKA the vampires).
Dylan and his new lady-friend, the one who lost her father to the hairy beast (the werewolf) are accompanied by Dylan's old semi-partner who has recently died and been zombified. They go around trying to stop this war from even starting, and yeah...that's pretty much all you need to know.
I can't believe I just said that. The basic story is NOT all you need to know. I believe that it is my duty to tell you WHAT went wrong with the film's simple premise, and why this move just flat-out sucks. It has to do a lot with the existence of the production alone. Why was it made? It couldn't have been good, given the budget and the genre; not a good combo. If you're going to make an action movie, you need to make it for action FANS. I mean, even "Battle: Las Angeles" has better action sequences. And that's saying a lot, considering that every single loud, violent action scene present in that film just plain sucked.
I love a good paranormal story, and this material (the "Dylan Dog" comic series) could have made for an entertaining movie. The reason it's not entertaining is because it combines bad acting with horrendous dialogue with completely unfunny "comedic" situations. I'm all for finding humor out of the undead, but this film doesn't even try to appeal to the crowd that will do just that. It's chock full of generic gags and one-liners, all which sound lame in the end, but luckily, it's all forgettable. I can't say the same about the experience; it's pretty damn agonizing. It's movies like these that have people staying away from the cinema, frequently. I have no sympathy for a film this stupid and revolting in style. It has no class, nor is it funny...at all. Did I mention that it features Peter Stormare in a completely wasted, uninspired, and all-around corny role? Yeah, there's another problem when it comes to "Dylan Dog". The list is endless, I could go on-and-on-and-on, but what's the point? Just don't waste your time.
The film's other major flaw is - once again - Munroe's poor direction. He's just so incompetent when it comes to storytelling, writing execution and perhaps most notably, acting. The actors have little to work with and yet, they're so mediocre, if not flat-out bad, thanks to Munroe's poor direction. Many of the side performances are so cheesy and overactive. Anita Briem is so bland, incompetent and feels so fake, much like - believe or not - Taye Diggs, who is notorious for being such a solid actor... from what I hear, because I don't keep up with him too much. As for leading man Brando Routh, he lacks charisma and much like most everyone else, he's just so bland and sleep-walk...ey. Ironically, other than a few somewhat decent songs on the soundtrack and some pretty decent practical effects, a performer is pretty much the only moderately notable strength, as Sam Huntington brings some charm and the occasional mildly effective piece of humor, but never to where it even comes close to saving the film.
Overall, "Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" has little to it, but incompetence when it comes to writing, production value, acting and above all, directing, making it a bland, poor and forgettable mess that deserves its straight-to-video release. Oh, sorry. I get confused because of the level of incompetence and the fact that it made about the price of a video at the box office. No, I mean a real video, like a VHS tape.
Surprisingly good movie that tries to mix together a Private Investigator type mystery movie with the whole "what goes bump in the night" mythos. Vampires, demons, werewolves, zombies, ghouls, etc all make an appearance with better than average special effects for a B type movie.
If you are wondering why you haven't seen Brandon Routh in anything (besides Chuck) since playing Superman, you can watch his acting in this movie and understand. He tries to play super badass but can't pull it off, and he does all the voice narrating in a super bland monotone designed to invoke suicidal tendencies instead of interest in the plotline.
Sam Huntington, however, was hilarious as the partner turned Zombie and makes the whole movie worth watching.