Vampire in Brooklyn (1995) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
60 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Not The Travesty Some Claim
gavin694224 July 2014
Maximillian (Eddie Murphy) is the only survivor from a race of vampires on a Caribbean Island, and as a vampire, he must find a mate to keep the line from ending.

Some have said this film is the worst for Murphy and for Wes Craven, with Murphy saying the wig he had to wear was a big part of the problem. Now, looking back almost twenty years later, the wig does not look bad, and this was far from rock bottom for Murphy. For Craven, it may not be his strongest film, but it may also not be his worst ("Cursed" is pretty bad).

Seriously, this is not that bad of a film, even if the humor never hits exactly right.
20 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Underappreciated movie from Wes Craven.
air-man7716 August 2018
"Vampire in Brooklyn" is probably one of Wes Craven's most underappreciated movies, and that for some weird reasons. The movie contains some chillings horror moments especially the dreams scenes with Angela Bassett. This type of scene is the ones we love from Craven. It's also got a romance between Bassett and Eddie Murphy's character. Their scenes together are great with a really good chemistry from the two actors. The problem about the movie is the comedy part. It's doesn't really match with the movie overall. BUT don't understimate it, it's a really entertaining movie with great scenes from Craven. It got the "People under the Stairs" and "New Nightmare" kind of vibe and it fits the movie perfectly.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"I would love to have you for dinner"
Smells_Like_Cheese3 December 2003
Warning: 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.

20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not for today's society
This movie is not a vampire movie. It's a movie about human behavior, religious hypocrisy, animal behavior, social issues, and difficult choices. I don't feel it will translate well to today's expectations. This is one of my favorite movies.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Eddie Murphy is a good vampire.
alfred_zamora13 September 2000
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 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Brilliant twist on the '90s Murphy formula!
curtis-823 July 2001
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.
28 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Somehow I Failed to Get This One.
nycritic11 May 2005
Warning: 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.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Eddie - Funny & Seductive!
Moonlyn13 February 2005
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.
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Enjoyable Murphy Flick
marlowe_is_dead8 December 2003
i read through some of the negative reviews, and felt I had to add one for the positives. I am a fan of Eddie Murphy, and have noticed that many of his films have pretty poor ratings here on IMDB, including this one, which has a shockingly low rating.

I thought the film had very funny moments, and Murphy had a good rapport with his Ghoul. Also, the plotline was pretty interesting. I thought it worked very well, and I hope that the IMDB rating will improve.
22 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Excellent hight class vampire movie!
wiseguygabriel18 November 2014
Contrary to IMDb grade of this movie and the many reviewers who appraised it as a low to mediocre movie piece i have only the highest praise for this movie.

This is not a comedy but this is also not a horror movie.It is a mix of drama,horror and comedy.

Eddie Murphys performance as a vampire was amazing and the special effects were awesome.

This movie is definitely a classic and quite sure it is misunderstood by most.

One of the best vampire movies ever made.

10 out of 10 Keep this treasure alive!
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A horror comedy that's neither scary nor funny, a none starter really.
poolandrews20 August 2007
Warning: 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.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Bottom of the Pit for Both the Star and Director
Michael_Elliott18 October 2012
Vampire in Brooklyn (1995)

* (out of 4)

They say sometimes great artists must hit an ultimate low before they can fully bounce back and that has never been more true for both director Wes Craven and star Eddie Murphy. In the film Murphy plays Maximillian, a Caribbean vampire who comes to Brooklyn in search of a woman to carry on his race. He finds the beautiful Rita (Angela Bassett) but his plan isn't going to be as simple as he thought. It's worth noting that Craven's next film was SCREAM and Murphy followed this up with THE NUTTY PROFESSOR so it's easy to see that both of them were just at the bottom of their careers here. The shocking thing revisiting this film for the first time since it was released is that it's actually gotten much, much worse. For the life of me I can't understand what the two were trying to do here but I'm guessing they wanted to take both of what they were great at and put it together but the end result is just a complete disaster. The comedy is so forced and uneven that it's never once funny. The horror elements are just so silly that they're never scary and when the gore does happen it just seems out of place. The entire film has a very ugly pacing and a lot of the blame has to go to Craven for not pulling the picture together but I'd still place more blame on Murphy, the producers, for hiring him. I'm not sure if Murphy and John Landis had a falling out on BEVERLY HILLS COP III but it's clear that he would have been much better with the (bad) material. The performances are all pretty weak with Murphy leading the way in an embarrassing piece of work. Allen Payne is wasted in his supporting role and Kadeem Hardison is just so in-your-face that the entire act just falls apart. VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN is a perfect example of something that has talent but it just never came together for anything.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Eddie Murphy comedy
skarbear640415 February 2005
In the first place, you've got to have a sense of humor to like this film. Second, you need to be a die hard Eddie Murphy fan as well.

I disagree with those that say "Vampire…" just portrays racial stereotypes. Yes, Kadeem Hardison and John Witherspoon are stereotypical "black low lifes", but so what? Angela Bassett and Allen Payne are just as stereotypical in their portrayals of honest, middle class blacks who work hard for a living. Not all Italians are Mafiosos, but by their own admission, all Mafiosos must be of Italian or Sicilian ancestry; their rules.

How many times have you seen what appeared to be a "different" slant to the Dracula theme only to walk out of the theater feeling it was deja vous all over again? This film very sarcastically juxtaposes this timeless story onto the waterfront of Brooklyn and invades the seamy life of a small time bookie and his chiseling uncle. Somehow I don't think the film would have been quite as funny if it had been about yuppies in Connecticut (for that kind of supernatural thriller, see Wolf, with Jack Nicholson and Michelle Pheiffer).

Eddie Murphy obviously doesn't see his various characters in this film, its plot, nor other supporting characters as racist. Racy yes; Racist, no. And if you go to an Eddie Murphy movie you need to expect raw language. After all, he's Gumby, d*** it!
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I wish Eddie Murphy never grew up.
Nozze-Musica2 July 2005
When Eddie Murphy did movies like Trading Places, and Beverly Hills Cop, he was cool because he was funny. With movies like this Murphy is trying to be cool before he is being funny. there is very little comedy in this movie, and if the movie is trying to be modern in vogue it really doesn't succeed at that either. Murphy does a fair job as a Caribbean vampire in Brooklyn looking for a soulmate. The movie does not have enough of his crazy characterizations, nutty characters, and all around goofy comedy. The movie was so disappointing because I thought this was going to be extremely funny. Why wouldn't Eddie Murphy make this movie like he did Beverly Hills Cop? Not take the movie so seriously? The movie had a very dark tone, and that would have worked, because it could make for more subtle Eddie Murphy comedy, but Murphy attempts so few jokes here, there is so little opportunity for him to try and be funny. The movie seems like a grand experiment that falls on it's face. But it was so easy to make this movie funny, just have his characterizations and good one liners applied to a very unusual vampire movie, don't worry about being cool. Movies used to be so natural for him in the eighties, but it was a different time. He was still funny then and he could be now. Angela Bassett does a pretty good job as a cop in search of Murphy, but really can't save this movie, it's just so awkward, it doesn't know whether it wants to be a horror flick a love story or a comedy. It tries to be all three and succeeds at none.

But overall this movie was a disappointment, something that could have been great but was mediocre. Murphy overall struggled in the nineties, and this is a classic example why, instead of being funny in his movies he tries too hard to be cool and it doesn't work. Murphy needs to remember he was funny because he applied his unique sense of humor to films, he needs to have his own band of movie instead of trying to produce someone else's style of comedy. Stick with Beverly Hills Cop or 48 Hours, where he is at his best and he is Eddie Murphy, the one we all know and love. Hours to see Murphy at his best.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Real Low In Murphy's Career
ccthemovieman-115 June 2007
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!
16 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
sheer and utter torture
demondrink5 June 2003
I can't believe this film has gained so many positive IMDB reviews. It is one of the worst pieces of garbage I have ever seen. Eddie Murphy and Angela Bassett - what were you doing? Did you lose a bet or something? Shi**y premise, no pacing, no tension, terrible dialogue, and cliches exhausted well beyond the point of irony. Oh, and the comic relief was embarrassing. Shouting rapid-fire obscenities in a high-pitched voice does not make you funny. Anglea Bassett was gorgeous. That's the only thing I enjoyed about this waste of celluloid.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good for Haloween
kenandraf29 October 2000
The directing job on this movie was good and so was the acting from Murphy and Basset.Murphy makes one of the best vampires ever yet.The problem here was the budget.The sets were cheap looking and the supporting actors were terrible.This movie however enterains and will be a Haloween favorite for TV.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Avoid at all cost: Don't even read my comments
katlb973 November 2002
Avoid this movie at all cost If you are still reading my review of this movie you are spending too much time, So STOP IT. You should be paid to watch this movie, even if you watch it on television and didn't pay anything for it. A stupid plot with mediocre acting (although the actors have proven in the past that they are quite capable of acting, they don't prove that they have ANY talent here.) Just avoid this movie and watch almost anything other than this. I know it would be time well spent. Enjoy your night.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why, Wes???????????
Fulci17 October 1998
After the excellent Wes Craven's New Nightmare, I had high hopes for Wes' next movie. When I saw that Eddie Murphy stars and writes I lost my confidence. I was right. This is not only Wes Craven's worst movie. It's one of the most crappy films of all time. Eddie Murphy sucks, so does the film. Unfunny, unscary, ungory, uncinematic. All in all, pure ****. Giving this movie a 1 would be giving it too much credit. Luckily, when all hope was lost, Wes blessed us with his two best films: Scream 1 and 2.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not Bad!
krismoorenyc11 April 2019
I don't get the low rating for this film. The make up was great and Eddie played a few cool characters. Worth a watch if you like Eddie Murphy and vampires lol
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
liodavix13 February 2019
Sympathetic terrifying comedy that has been unfairly despised by many, who could not see the homage to the blaxploitation and the most classic horror film they tried to do in this film.

On the one hand the Blaxploitation is more than obvious. For vampire cinema has always been predominant for a white audience for obvious reasons, being a European legend, and on the other hand, its magnificent and gothic setting, which gives it a Halloween-like appearance, with a marginal urban atmosphere, Brooklyn neighborhood in this case, covered with thick mists and dark alleys.

Eddie Murphy is great. If you can not stand it, as many say, then why do you watch an Eddie Murphy movie? I'm bored with curlyng, but that's not why I give birth, I respect it, period. Well with this happens the same. If you like Murphy, as is my case, then you will see that his performance is quite correct, an elegant vampire, as seductive as cruel and bloodthirsty, with some comic points Murphy own. An acceptable role in its proper measure.

Of the rest of secondary highlights as not, the assistant of Maximilliam, the spawn, who does the funniest part of the film, Angela Basset, the best performance, and his partner, well, puts the heroic note of the function.

Obviously the script is improvable, but it is totally entertaining, technically it is very good, with a good sound, its setting is lovely as I said, and that it is in the hands of Wes Craven, enhances the quality of the film, which has it, as much as they always disqualify the smart guys.

Who thinks it's a mess, take a look at Dracula 3000 or Dracula 2001, for example and make comparisons.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not terrible but not very good either
bob the moo27 July 2002
The last surviving vampire, Maximillian, sails into New York to find a half breed female to breed with. The woman in question, Rita, doesn't know that she's a vampire. With help from his unwilling ghoul Julius, Maximillian tires to woo Rita to join him, but it is Rita's choice as to where she will spend her eternity.

This ranks as one of a series of lows in Eddie Murphy's career, although it isn't terrible – just pretty poor and muddled. The plot is OK on paper but in reality it lacks focus and isn't very involving. The comedy doesn't really work and most of it isn't funny, even the characters written to be funny can barely manage to get a laugh. Also it fails to be scary. With Wes Craven and a big budget, you'd expect some scares – even if they were average ones, but no, not a thing – the `scary' scenes are just silly action scenes and there is no real horror (or tension) in this film.

I like Eddie Murphy and I like his trend of playing multiple characters. The problem is that this only works where the material is good or the film is funny (ie his `family' was the best thing about the Nutty Professor), however here his characters are not good – and his main role is ineffective and silly. I always have time for Angela Bassett as she is not only beautiful but plays good characters (anyone who saw her carry Strange Days will know what I mean), but here she has little material – but still manages to grab the attention. She acts Murphy off the screen. Hardison is not a good actor and his comedy role is not good at all, even reliable like Witherspoon and a few other familiar faces are wasted.

Overall this just about passes the time – but it manages to fail in almost every area it tries to work in. Not funny and not scary and not dramatic and not romantic – watchable but really has very little going for it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not As Bad As You Think, But Not As Good As You Think, Either
domino100328 January 2005
Warning: 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.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Blacula redux
bkoganbing10 August 2019
I'm not sure exactly what Eddie Murphy was trying to accomplish with Vampire In Brooklyn. It has some humorous moments, but it seems mostly a drama. It satirizes those old Blacula movies from the 70s, but not so good.

Eddie is the sole survivor of an African race of vampires who made it to the Carribbean courtesy of slavers. There's a reputed daughter of a vampire in a place up north called Brooklyn. And it's a woman so Murphy is on a mission.

Vampire In Brooklyn sure opened up funny with that freighter crashing into the docks in Red Hook with nothing alive on board. But after a few gruesome type murders happen, wouldn't you know it. The lead detective on the case, Angela Bassett is our quarry and Murphy pulls out all the stops to bring her into the vampire fold.

I think Kadeem Hardison fares best in the cast playing a street numbers runner who Murphy turns into a Renfield like slave. In the end he makes out just fine.

Far from top drawer EddieMurphy.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just Delightful
Wally-E21 March 2019
Trying to explain why a 90s blaxploitation vampire movie staring Eddie Murphy is great late night fun is really hard. But if you can get past the cheese, it's not half-bad.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed