Un vampire à Brooklyn

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

In the early 90s, horror wasn't exactly riding high. It had kind of turned into a niche genre with a lot of forgettable flicks. But in that time, Wes Craven dropped some underrated gems like The People Under the Stairs, the solid Wes Craven's New Nightmare, and of course, the legendary Scream. Scream is known for its mix of killer horror scenes and dark humor, a trademark of Craven's style.

And speaking of humor, Craven really took it up a notch with Vampire in Brooklyn. This one's a wild ride-mixing classic horror with Eddie Murphy's urban comedy. The result? A slightly schizophrenic but highly enjoyable film. The chemistry between Murphy and Angela Bassett is great, and the supporting cast (Kadeem Hardison, the late John Witherspoon, etc.) really brings the fun. The horror moments aren't bad either, especially with J. Peter Robinson's tight score and Craven's direction, which feels like he was totally in his zone.

It might just be one of Craven's most accessible films, but also one of his most charming. It's a cult classic in its own right.

Vampire in Brooklyn (1995) is such an interesting film that it deserves a viewing regardless of it being any good or not. Wes Craven and Eddie Murphy combine to make a film that subverts expectations while becoming classic spooky season film.

I heard about this film due to its unique mark on Eddie Murphy's catalog where he explores horror and remains serious the entire film. The seriousness alone from Murphy makes this film seem kind of odd but as you get used to it it slowly gets better throughout the film. Eddie Murphy plays multiple characters and still avoids humor which is impressive but disappointing at times.

Wes Craven gives this film a spooky quality that is actually fear-inducing even with sub-optimal special effects. But I will say that the plot gets a little jumpy and doesn't really explain everything as it should be doing with a vampire from the Caribbean.

Its not a great film, but it is a great Halloween film that will make people shiver due to fear or at least from cringe. Give it a watch but keep expectations low.

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.

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.