Reviews & Ratings for
Vampire in Brooklyn More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

41 reviews in total

---

15 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Somehow I Failed to Get This One., 11 May 2005

Author: nycritic

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wes Craven directs LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, controversy ensues. Wes Craven directs THESE HILLS HAVE EYES and maims his audience. Wes Craven directs A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and revitalizes a genre with a super-bad villain. Wes Craven directs THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW, hit.

Wes Craven directs A VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN?

I don't know what to make of this one. It does have an interesting take on the vampire genre in a way that should have worked in the way he would spoof the horror genre in SCREAM, but where SCREAM had loads of in-jokes, references to other horror movies and a young cast of actors who were playing very self-conscious people who knew what to do and what not to do in a horror film, here the results just don't mix. Had he gotten a much more skilled team of writers who could come up with wicked pop-culture references to blaxploitation films (and why not make this an ultra-hip version of BLACULA?), had he nixed the fatalistic seriousness that comes through like leftovers from both BRAM STOKER'S Dracula and countless vampire films and turned this into an edgy satire a la FRIGHT NIGHT or something crazier like THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, maybe it would have fared better. Actually I stand corrected: it would have fared much better. But having Eddie Murphy play his role totally straight, having Angela Bassett who seems like she's in a whole other movie, and then having that totally ludicrous epilogue which seems straight out of the Friday franchise... I don't know where to make heads or tails from it. I just don't.

---

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
"I would love to have you for dinner", 3 December 2003

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ever since I was a kid, I've loved vampires. My mom had introduced me to that part of horror movies when I was very young and I always found the vampire to be the most interesting of all monsters. They are the only one's that could appear human, they lure you in making it seem normal, but then before you know it, they turn on you. They're the most terrifying monsters if you really think about it. So Wes Craven, one of the masters of horror, who brought us amazing scary movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Last House on the Left, The Hills have Eyes and Scream tried to take on the vampire genre. Interestingly enough as a mixture of horror and comedy. Not something that is brand new as we see with Love at first Bite, Fearless Vampire Killers and Dracula: Dead and Loving it, but he seems to do an unbalanced job with Vampire in Brooklyn.

An abandoned ship crashes into a dockyard in Brooklyn, New York, and the ship inspector, Silas, inspects it, finding it full of corpses. Elsewhere, Julius Jones, has a run-in with some Italian mobsters. Just as the two goons are about to kill Julius, Maximillian, a suave, mysterious vampire, intervenes and kills them. Soon after, Maximillian infects Julius with his vampiric blood, turning Julius into a decaying ghoul; he then explains that he has come to Brooklyn in search of the Dhampir daughter of a vampire from his native island in order to live beyond the night of the next full moon. Now he's in search of Rita, the woman he was meant to be with in Brooklyn, New York.

The thing is, I still like this film despite it's flaws. I remember being obsessed with this movie when I was a kid. Growing up, I got the DVD, does it have it's problems? Yeah. Angela Bassett who is normally a great actress really overacts in this film to the point where her character becomes obnoxious. Eddie Murphy does a pretty decent job, he plays a number of characters as usual. Playing not only Maximillian, but the preacher and the crook. He seemed to have fun with the role and had a lot of charisma. I also thought the relationship and chemistry between Kadeem Hardison and John Witherspoon as Julius and Silas was not only great but absolutely hilarious. I couldn't catch my breath from laughing so much when Silas accidentally pulls Julius' arm off and Silas says "Look at this! Now you the fugitive!" and Julius keeps telling him to put it back on and how he needs his arm back. There are some genuine funny moments mainly between Julius and Silas. As for the scary, not so much; there are some good one's here and there, between Nikki's murder and Eddie Murphy's make up was pretty frightening. While it's a flawed film, I think it's still worth checking out over all, it's a good story that just needed a better cast and a little more thought. But I think you'll get a few good chuckles out of this film.

6/10

---

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
A Brilliant twist on the '90s Murphy formula!, 23 July 2001
Author: curtis martin from Bothell, Washington, Land of Rain

In the 1980s, Eddie Murphy single-handedly recreated the Black Action hero, replacing the old murderous superstud of the 1970s with black characters who depended on their quick wits more than their big guns. That formula was quickly run dry, however, both by Murphy himself and the imitators he inspired.

So, Eddie intelligently decided that he needed to recreate a forgotten genre of comedy, one which Peter Sellars had mastered in the 60s, and which only Murphy could do today: he would make movies in which he played multiple characters. The Genesis began with "Coming to America", in which Murphy played not only the lead role, but also all the inhabitants of a Harlem barbershop. The sequences were short, but Murphy was building the road to becoming the most brilliant character actor of our day. Soon followed the "Nutty Professor" movies, "Bowfinger", and his animated TV series, "The PJ's." In all these Murphy played a multiplicity of roles, and played them all brilliantly (the Academy's disdain for streetwise comedies, and--well, lets just say it--their dismissal of black performers not playing slaves or pimps, are the only explanations possible for Murphy not owning an Oscar or two by now).

With these projects, Eddie was not only playing different characters, but also honing a new Eddie Murphy genre: raunchy, but intelligent; gross, but heartfelt; hilariously over the top in the particulars of plot, but firmly rooted in emotional reality. He has created or has been involved with, some of the arguably best comedies of the 1990's and onward--and has been responsible for inarguably the best comic performances of the era.

So, in this era, Eddie decided to push the envelope by mixing the new Eddie Genre with the Horror films he loved as a kid. The result, "A Vampire in Brooklyn", is unsettling to some because the lines between Eddie's wildly improvisational Black (or African American, if you insist) character comedy to straight vampire horror movie are so starkly drawn. There are very few instances where the comedy and horror overlap. This, I feel, is the brilliance of the film. There are no horror moments broken by a punchline or bad joke, and there are no comedy moments punctuated by some kind of sick horror gag (that has been done to death since John Landis' "American Werewolf in London". Now its being beated to death by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). The funny parts are funny and the scary parts are truly scary.

And Murphy also gets to shine in multiple well-defined character parts as well, as the shape-shifting African Vampire assumes the physical identity of several of his victims.

"Vampire" failed at the box office not because it was a bad film--its definitely is not. But because it was too unusual a film for the limited abilities of the studio's marketing department to sell. Those going expecting to see a comedy were disappointed it contained so much pure horror, and those going to see it based on the publicity that painted it as a horror film were dissapointed it contained so much hilarious Murphy style comedy.

It dies because of false expectations. Eddie's other films contained quick changes in tone as well--the shifts between bathroom comedy and pathos in the Nutty Professor films is no less abrupt than those between horror and comedy in "Vampire".

It's just that the choice of horror as the second element mixed with the comedy is a more daring and unusual one.

Years from now, "A Vampire in Brooklyn" will be viewed as one of the highpoints of the second phase of the Eddie Murphy Genre.

---

15 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Eddie - Funny & Seductive!, 13 February 2005

Author: moonlyn music from Toronto, Canada

The only person who can give a fair commentary on this film would be a vampire lover, such as myself. As much as I love to laugh and adore Eddie Murphy's comedic talent, the genre of Vampires is my ultimate favourite topic. Some may say that I'm even slightly obsessed... So when it comes to this film I will say that I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, it was a touch cheesy and yes it was funny, but why can't a vampire film make you laugh too? I approached this film with a lot of reservation because I really didn't think Eddie Murphy was vampire material. But Eddie pulled it off. Yes- I feel that he truly did. He had that hypnotic stare and seductive movement that would've paralyzed me too if I was in his presence then too. So I give this movie the thumbs up and not just for vampire lovers and not just for Eddie Murphy fans- this is quite an entertaining film.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Eddie Murphy is a good vampire., 13 September 2000
Author: alfred_zamora from Somewher in Australia

I watched this movie thinking it would be like other eddie murphy movies- lots of humor and fun. I was wrong BUT I wasn't dissapointed. I mean, for once I enjoyed a horror movie. Usually I shy away from horror movies because of their incredibly stupid and repetitive plots and characters. This one was different however. I don't really know what it was that made me like this movie, but I have to say that Eddie Murphy makes a good vampire. His version of a vampire is cool but SO totally evil.And his sidekick Kadeem Hardison(also seen in the movie Drive) is funny. In all a good movie. I guarantee that once you start watching this movie you'll be hooked and wont want to finish watching it until the end. 8/10

---

14 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
A Real Low In Murphy's Career, 15 June 2007

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States

This is reverse racism of the worst kind, a film where all the white people are the bad guys and the black people are the good guys. How come racially-biased films like this are "politically correct" even though they reek of prejudice? All the white people are killed, too. Does make things better? Does that help race relations?

Add to that bigotry and very boring love story between Murphy and Angela Bassett and you have a film that was very disappointing. Murphy is a funny guy and someone whose films I usually enjoy....but this was ridiculous. This was a movie that didn't really know what it wanted to be: comedy, romance or horror. A good mixture would have acceptable but none of the categories were represented well here.

As other people point out, this started off strong but quickly lost itself and was a mess from that point. Where was the direction of this film? This was a real low in Murphy's career, which did plummet until recently. The once-box office star seems to have made a comeback, almost like rising from the dead. In that case, maybe NOW he should have played the vampire!

---

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
This movie bites!, 14 February 2008

Author: Brian T. Whitlock (GOWBTW) from WILMINGTON, NC

This is one Eddie Murphy movie that didn't get my goat. I've heard of "Blackula", this movie doesn't amuse me that well. You got some multiple characters there: There's this vampire from the Caribbean who was in a boat, that wiped out all the crew, and crashed somewhere in New York. This vampire goes to find a bride, who happens to be a cop(Angela Bassett). She's half-vampire. Kadeem Hardison from "A Different World" fame plays a servant, just like Dracula have only a little sillier. Some scenes in the movie were out of line, especially when the vampire came in form of a preacher. Just like all vampire lords, they go down the usual way, stake, sunlight, holy cross, or head cut off. Wes Craven gives this movie a try, since he's the horror master. However, this horror movie just didn't go for the jugular, it went for the funny bone. It didn't tickle mine though. Sorry! 1 out of 5 stars!

---

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
A horror comedy that's neither scary nor funny, a none starter really., 20 August 2007

Author: Paul Andrews (poolandrews@hotmail.com) from UK

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Vampire in Brooklyn starts as a large boat crashes into a Brooklyn dock, on-board the whole crew are discovered murdered. They were murdered by Maximillian (Eddie Murphy) a Vampire from the Caribbean who happens to be the last of his kind & needs to mate with another Vampire & the closet thing left is half Vampire half human NYPD cop Detective Rita Veder (Angela Bassett) who doesn't yet know she's half Vampire, Maximillian has to convince her she is a Vampire & then to mate with her otherwise the Vampire race will die out...

Directed by Wes Craven this is a romantic comedy horror with an almost entirely black cast that doesn't really work in any respect. The script by Charles Murphy (Eddie's brother), Michael Lucker & Chris Parker quite simply is a laugh free zone, hell I didn't even crack a smile during this. The film starts off very horror orientated then it becomes very comedic before romance takes over, none of these genres particularly go well together & the film feels very uneven, I suppose it moves along at a fair pace & the basic story is alright but it's a bit of a chore to sit through as nothing on screen works that well & a constant stream of profanity is not funny on it's own, is a very lazy way to write & starts to become annoying. The scene when Murphy impersonates the preacher is just plain embarrassing & I hated the ending as well.

Director Craven had never made a comedy before & it show's as the comedy scenes just don't work, the horror & gore scenes are far more effective & it's a shame there's not more of them. By the time Craven teamed up with Murphy to make this both needed a hit after their careers both hit slumps, Vampire in Brooklyn was a poor choice of film although the story does have a happy ending as Craven went on to make the mega hit teen horror slasher Scream (1996) & Murphy made the successful children's comedy The Nutty Professor (1996) as their next films respectively. Angela Bassett's stunt double Sonya Davis died went a stunt went wrong where she was supposed to fall from a building onto an airbag but she actually hit her head on the solid ground. There's some gore here, there's a ripped out heart, various dead bodies with slit throats, some blood drinking & a stake through the heart although the special make-up effects on Murphy at the end look terrible.

With a supposed budget of about $14,000,000 this had a decent amount of cash thrown at it, I don't think it flopped at the box-office but it didn't do that well either. It's well made with decent production values. The acting isn't that great & surprisingly Murphy is the only one who plays it straight which is very odd, Bassett is forgettable & Kadeem Hardison as the comedy relief ghoul is terrible.

Vampire in Brooklyn is a horror film that isn't scary, a comedy that isn't funny & it's got a black cast directed by a white man brought in for his name & as a whole it just doesn't work on any level. One to avoid.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not an EDDIE MURPHY movie & certainly no WES CRAVEN one either!, 3 October 2005
Author: Prolox from Canada

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So just what type of film is this? I haven't a clue, the film seems to be unsure of this too, at moments we get some sheer comedy, while at other times we get a serious minded horror movie, however unlike most films such as IDLE HANDS & EVIL DEAD 2, where there was a perfect blend of comedy & horror, VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN's mix does not always work, it's like watching two separate versions of this tale all at once, while the actors, direction & special effects make-up were good, the film falls into a mediocre fare. The story goes that Murphy's vampire character comes to Brooklyn to find a bride, tagging along is a slave that was once human who has been turned into a zombie by Max the vampire & in several humorous moments (Though gross too) parts of him falls off as he slowly decays & when Max the vampire thinks he's found his bride in the form of police officer ANGELA BASSETT, her partner tries to rescue her from Max's clutches as she is slowly falling under Max's spell. A major problem concerning this film was in it's pre-production, Murphy who was a fan of Wes horror films like SERPENT & THE RAINBOW, had hoped to work with the director on a film that him & his brother Charlie wrote, Craven accepted the assignment & was more than happy to work with Murphy, the problem was, was that Wes had hoped to leave the horror genre (Which he has tried to do unsuccessfully for a few years now) & do a comedy with Murphy, but Murphy had hoped to do a horror film with Wes Craven, & Paramount pictures was determined to get a comedy from Murphy, after several re-writes in which the writers tried to please the Paramount execs, Murphy fans & Craven fans both, we have wound up with this, that is not really for Murphy or Craven fans, it's just a major mess, Murphy tries hard to give his best performance but it doesn't help. Not a total loss, but nothing worthwhile either, I say skip it & check out some of Craven's & Murphy's other works instead, since they are so much better than this movie, which unwisely leaves the door open for a sequel.

** stars

---

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not As Bad As You Think, But Not As Good As You Think, Either, 28 January 2005

Author: domino1003 from East Texas, USA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Vampire In Brooklyn" is not as bad as everyone thinks it is. However, parts of it isn't as good, either. Maximillian (Eddie Murphy)is the last of his race and needs to find his mate or else the line ends. Rita (Angela Bassett)is the object of his desire. It seems that her mother had a fling with a vampire many years ago and Rita is the result. Knowing this, Max uses every mean at his disposal, including recruiting a hustler named Julius (Kadeem Hardison), to bring out Rita's vampire side. Some parts are funny (Julius constantly losing body parts), but others drag the film down (Murphy AGAIN playing multiple parts). The fact that a stunt woman lost her life while doing this film (At least they could have dedicated the film to her)brings the humor down a bit. Maybe this film is the reason why Murphy sticks to kid films, instead.

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history