One of my all time favorites.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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 If you want to use a source text that's several decades out of date, in a genre that has thrived in the intervening time, then you need to bring your A Game as a writer, and demonstrate that you're aware of what's gone before,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 Alas, the comedy is leaden, the writing is witless, stilted and painfully out of date, and the entire premise (I'm trying to be cagey but this bit might be countered a trifle SPOILERY) is ultimately bogged down in tired misogynistic tropes.The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.

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.

Why do i hate this movie?Simple,I am a big Dylan Dog fan.I understand that people write good reviews for this movie because they don't know the character of Dylan Dog,the comic or any thing else.From a non Dylan fan i would give this movie a 6/10.From a Dylan fan perspective i gave it a 3/10 because it had some mediocre stuff.First thing is that almost all the characters are gone.Second they made Dylan such a pathetic guy,he doesn't want to work with nobody,in the comics he almost always works with hot and sexy women witch in this case she is not that hot AND THEY MADE IT A FREAKING COMEDY,wtf.Dylan dog has a little bit comedy from Groucho.Why do people always wanna change the things we love(Groucho).A little detail i want to say is that in the comic books his license plate says DYD 666,THEY Couldn't EVEN PUT THAT,another thing is when the F did Dylan move to America.They just messed up badly.

I don't understand the terrible reviews on this movie. It wasn't absolutely the worst movie I've ever seen, it actually was pretty good, I even laughed quite a few times. I had honestly never heard of the comic before I read about it in one review (Yeah yeah, stupid Americans, I know), and I only watched the movie because I figured it had to be a little good if it had a main character that hot. In truth, Brandon Routh did not give the best performance in this movie. He showed almost no emotion the entire movie. I mean, I think I would do a little more than sulk quietly and half-heartedly kick some inanimate objects if my best friend was murdered. Speaking of the best friend, Sam Huntington is absolutely the best part in Dylan Dog. His character is funny, witty, and not exactly happy about being a zombie. He was the only reason I laughed. Anita Briem, whom I immediately recognized from her poor performance alongside Brendan Fraser in Journey to The Center of the Earth, lived up to my low expectations. She tries hard to pull off her secretly evil character, but in the end her acting falls flat. Overall, you will probably enjoy this movie just because of the funny zombie parts, or just because its the genre it is, but don't expect an major wows or exciting plot twists.