Review of Vampire in Brooklyn (1995) by Michael S — 23 Aug 2014

Starring Eddie Murphy and directed by Wes Craven, Vampire in Brookyln sounded like a combination between the talents of comedy and horror.

Unfortunately, the idea was too good to be true because the central issue in the film is how the skills of Eddie Murphy and Wes Craven clash in establishing the tone of the film. While I had hoped that Vampire in Brookyln could have been a good blend of horror and comedy, the two genres did not cross paths well at all in Vampire in Brookyln which ensured that the film did not end up funny enough to be a good comedy or thrilling enough to be a decent horror piece.

At heart, Vampire in Brookyln is centrally a horror film. The general tone of the film is so serious and the themes are so dark, and so it is definitely leaning more towards the horror genre as a whole. When it comes to the comedy elements, all the humour in the film relies strictly on the script which is just not up to the quality of Eddie Murphy's better work. Neither him nor Wes Craven are at their best in Vampire in Brooklyn, mainly because the idea of them working together became nothing but a misfire. Like I said the issue is in the tone, and considering that the intention of the iflm is to have a lot of black humour in it, it is surprising just how little there really is.

Vampire in Brooklyn came out in 1995, the year after Beverly Hills Cop III. Although I found the latter to be a funny comedy, director John Landis had this to say about Eddie Murphy's performance in the film: "I believe he was very jealous of Denzel Washington and Wesley Snipes doing these [straight roles]. So, with Beverly Hills Cop III, I had this strange experience where he was very professional, but he just was not funny. I would try to put him in funny situations, and he would find a way to step around them". I feel that Vampire in Brooklyn is another example of that, although it is a lot less funny than Beverly Hills Cop III which I found seriously underrated. In Vampire in Brooklyn, the tone of the film is way too serious for it to actually stand as a comedy which means that it dissolves into the dark and lurid material of the horror elements in the film which in themselves are the most vague explorations of vampire mythology available. Although the atmosphere of Vampire in Brooklyn is perfectly dark, the story in the film is not compelling and is distinctly lacking in originality as well as the fact that it moves at a pace which is too slow and overstays its welcome way too soon. For a film with Eddie Murphy which clearly intended to be a comedy to some extent, Vampire in Brooklyn is not funny enough to carry the fact that the rest of the film is distinctively lacking. Usually, with a film like Vampire in Brookly I can overlook the lack of narrative creativity or originality if it delivers laughs and thrills as a comedy and a horror film. Here, it supplies neither despite attempting to do both which means that it is poor form. The central issue at the heart of Vampire in Brooklyn simply is that the film takes itself way too seriously and neglects its comedy elements so much that it is more of a straightforward horror film, and so when it tries to put jokes into the thinly sketched script, they come off as being strangely unneccesarry. Not just that, but the film cannot decide whether it wants viewers to support or hate its lead character and puts Eddie Murphy in the part to further confuse them. I'd say that Eddie Murphy's presence as the lead in Vampire in Brooklyn is a serious example of miscasting.

Eddie Murphy seems to work against the comedy of the film in Vampire in Brooklyn. He implements in his trademark skill of playing multiple roles at once by portraying central antagonist Maximillian as well Preacher Pauly Pauley and Guido with the latter two characters being stereotypical Eddie Murphy archetypes intended for humourous effect. And while Eddie Murphy's charm may have a certain level of success in the roles, when it comes to the part of Maximillian, the flaws come into play. He plays the role decently and has an interesting look decked out in makeup and costume so he portrays a convincing vampire, but he is not funny at all in the role and by the look of it he does not try to be at all. He takes the part way too seriously without recognising the fact that he is in a comedy film, and looking back on it now even he is well aware that the film is poor form and that he simply did it to get out of a deal and get on to his comeback performance in the comedy classic The Nutty Professor. Vampire in Brooklyn hands him a lead role which capitalises on none of his charms and feeds him a dull vampire archetype character and expects him to do what he can with it. Stuck in the same depressed state of mind that got him through Beverly Hills Cop III, Eddie Murphy reluctantly forces himself through the terrible role without having a single moment in the role to bring any laughs to the table. Eddie Murphy is not scary nor funny in the role of Maximillian and he reflects the fact that the entire film is a misfire which has no balance between comedy and horror and succeeds in neither areas, so it is clearly not one of his better roles.

So Vampire in Brooklyn has a decent horror tone and some ok visual elements, but in terms of thrills, laughs, storytelling and Eddie Murphy, it comes up way too short to really justify being entertaining slightly in any areas.