Review of Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2011) by Nicholas H — 03 Sep 2011

"Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" is, in my personal opinion, one of the most horribly underrated films in recent memory. While it has been overshadowed by more highly anticipated films, and it does have its flaws, it is nevertheless an enjoyable romp into a very familiar genre.

The plot centers around Dylan Dog, former detective of the supernatural underworld that hides behind the walls of New Orleans. He is aided by his comic relief sidekick Marcus, as the two attempt to solve a murder mystery that involves mafia-style werewolves, vampire drug dealers, and an ancient evil that threatens the balance of the world.

Brandon Routh plays Dylan as a sort of straight man. He hasn't got much in the way of strong emotions, but in his interpretation of the character, that doesn't often get in the way. Sure, the character is a typical "brooding hero" type, but he can also be fun, throwing out a few quips here and there that brought a smile to my face. Sam Worthington as Marcus, on the other hand, had me ROLLING with laughter. His performance is brilliantly over the top, but never unbelievably so. He is the lovable coward who, over the course of the film, comes into his own and even manages to find his own bit of heroic awesomeness before the credits roll. The only reason Brandon Routh received top billing in this movie is that he is a more well known name. Huntington is the real star.

Taye Diggs as Vargas is never genuinely scary, but he is cultured, clever, and even approachable. He seems to channel a bit of his role from "Rent": a guy who has moved up in the world, but still has some of the street left in him. He knows the game he is playing, and has played it quite well. In general, the rest of the supporting cast is quite enjoyable, managing to leave a positive impact despite their often short screen time. Characters like Big Al and the zombie morticians made me wish that their scenes had been expanded. The morticians in particular played off each other quite well.

The movie is, of course, not without its flaws. The greatest of these? Simply put: Anita Briem. Briem is absolutely atrocious as Elizabeth, the love interest with a twist. At first, she seems harmless enough. she has trouble hiding her natural accent, but she manages to have somewhat realistic reactions, even managing to convince me that her character might have emotions. The more time she spends on screen, however, the less you want to see of her. Her character does not grow in the movie. She simply jumps. She jumps into the role the script gave her, with no decent personal interpretation or convincing acting. Watching her is literally like watching an improv actor move in and out of the roles you shout at him. "Okay, you're a scared girl! Now you're sexually aroused for some reason!" There is no segue. The sensual scenes she instigates are completely out of nowhere, awkward, and unexplained. She simply has a sudden lust for the main character. As for the "twist", it turns out that Elizabeth is a "monster hunter" that has been whispered about in fearful tones the entire movie. And what do we see when she reveals herself as the hunter? Nothing. She is the same scared little girl, even when fighting! She has little confidence in herself, shaking in fear even as she prepares to capture her quarry. Honestly, it feels like she had a sudden lapse in memory. She delivers a typical, "I'm about to completely annihilate you" line, draws her knives, and then, all of a sudden, even though she obviously has the skill to outclass her supernatural foes, she is quaking in her boots as they advance. With all the available twenty-something starlets in the world, this casting choice was definitely an inexcusable error.

If one is willing to overlook Briem's performance, however, the other flaws are excusable, if not acceptable. The special effects are of decent quality, though, for a film released in 2011, they seem a bit antiquated. The plot can seem rushed at times (as with the aforementioned sex scenes), but the pacing is generally not something one would fuss over. Some scenes do seem to jump in sporadically, but many of these are to develop the Marcus character, and therefore are saved from seeming too far out of place. Also, it allows Huntington's character to reach greater levels of familiarity with the audience, and in turn makes him more relatable and funnier. As for the most often criticized flaw, namely the film's deviation from its source material, I personally had no issue with it. I was never a fan of the comic, but as a standalone story, the cinematic version is perfectly acceptable.

All in all, the treatment that this movie has received is almost criminal. Admittedly, "Dead of Night" has its issues, but they are grossly over exaggerated in the reviews that have highlighted them. I would not go so far as to call it the greatest movie ever, nor a masterpiece, but it does qualify as a fun and engaging film that, while watching, I did not want to end. I watched the time tick down on my DVD player with a bit of sadness, wishing I had more to watch. If Dylan Dog was ever given a sequel, I would go see it. As far as the first movie goes, it was far more than worth the dollar I spent to rent it. My advice to anyone who has not seen the movie: give it a chance. Don't listen to the overall reviews it has received, for they are grossly mistaken. Dead of Night is a movie worth watching, and I greatly expect it to rise from the grave as an underground favorite, similar to classics like "Boondock Saints", sometime in the near future.