Vampire in Brooklyn - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Vampire in Brooklyn Reviews

Page 1 of 43
February 2, 2018
Murphy is laughable in the lead role and the film falls flat in every department.
½ November 12, 2017
''A comic tale of horror and seduction.''

Really? It wasn't funny, it wasn't scary and it sure as heck wasn't seductive.
½ February 4, 2017
Atrocious. The worst film that I've seen Murphy in.
August 23, 2016
Eddie Murphy is good and good to look at, Angela Bassett likewise. But it looks like they couldn't get a ruling on whether this was to be a comedy or a scary, tried to combine the worst elements of both and came up with a mess. The supporting cast mainly overdo it in an attempt to be funny and while a few swear words are all right for emphasis or underlining, the "F" and "M--F" words come up with very tedious and monotonous regularity (like 17 times in three sentences. Don't bother, definitely not one of Murphy's best efforts. He has done and can do better than this mess.
½ July 18, 2016
One dimensional characters. Weak dialogue which doesn't support the plot or characters motivations, so you don't care what's happening. The narration is really bad. Eddie Murphy as a Italian guy was pretty funny. Overall a bad and disappointing film from Wes Craven and Eddie Murphy.
½ May 27, 2016
Pretty funny for the first half hour to an hour, then the rest just dragged. Follows normal vampire rules. Music was pretty good, in my opinion. You do get the Wes Craven vibe.
May 14, 2016
I always thought this was a good and funny was good critics be hating....good movie majority black cast...hilarious
½ January 30, 2016
Great movie! All of Eddie Murphy's roles were hilarious. And his ghoul Julius Jones. Hilarious movie­'?­?╗
January 8, 2016
The story is alright (but predictable) and Eddie Murphy and Angela Bassett are great.
½ December 30, 2015
This seemed like a somewhat ambitious project for both director Wes Craven and leading man Eddie Murphy. For Wes Craven, this was surely an opportunity to experiment with a more comedic direction, and for Eddie Murphy, it was an opportunity to play an uncharacteristically serious role. However, the end result struggles in its attempts to straddle horror and comedy, and there isn't a lot of balance in either approach. The premise is closely similar to Interview with the Vampire, but the film itself is decidedly less subtle in its execution of the central concept. It's not too bad, but they didn't try very hard in terms of actually realizing the concept, but at least the lead character is a lot more likable than in that other film, in my personal opinion at least. I was actually quite surprised by how straightforward the film was at the beginning. You see Eddie Murphy trying to pull off a variation of the Dave Vanian look while ripping a guy's heart out of his chest, and later on, he disguises himself as two other characters. One of them is a hilarious parody of the stereotypical loud preacher, who proceeds to give the best speech in the whole movie. The other one, however, is an awkwardly stereotypical Italian-American character whose performance tends to be rather hit or miss. The acting tends to be quite corny, but not bad enough that it's extremely off-putting. It would be somewhat decent if this were a made-for-TV film, but for a film intended for the cinema, there's a lot of ways in which it seems like they cut corners wherever they could. As usual, Eddie Murphy steals the show, but this time it's because he's trying to do something totally different to what we'd expect from him. Rather than try to be funny, Eddie's trying to play his character totally straight, and it's a bold attempt, but more often than not, it can turn into a comedic performance rather than a serious one, probably because of the film's unintentionally campy approach to its subject matter. The production values don't look very good, and unfortunately it's one of those films where the dark aesthetic style tends to make the film look murky rather than dark. However, sometimes there are scenes that manage to pull off a nice atmospheric quality, and I suppose the special effects aren't totally bad, but it's nothing worth grabbing a bucket of popcorn for. To me, the biggest problem is that they tried to market it as a more comedic horror film, when throughout the film a more serious horror direction tends to prevail. Then again, I doubt this would have been taken seriously if they marketed it as a straight-up horror film. Whatever the case, the result might have been the same no matter what the producers did. To me, despite it being derivative of other vampire films, this film actually might have had some potential, but it's the rather clumsy direction that ruins everything.
November 1, 2015
Campy, goofy fun. Julius makes the movie.
October 31, 2015
The only thing worse than the dialogue in this movie is Eddie's hairpiece. If you're looking for a really bad horror flick with more than a couple chuckles, give this forgettable but mildly entertaining movie a try.
October 10, 2015
This shit had me dead the whole time funny as shit and had the right horror tones very good film rest easy Wes
October 8, 2015
Actually a very good movie with an all star African American cast
½ September 4, 2015
While the transition from comedy to horror is jarring and not as smooth as I saw in the likes of American Werewolf in London, Vampire in Brooklyn may not be the finest film in Eddie Murphy and director Wes Craven's career, but it sure is the funniest.
August 31, 2015
Vampire in Brooklyn is one of Wes Craven's weakest films ever made and it's obvious why. Wes Craven attempted to go for comedy mixed in with horror and where the few bits comedy are the film is great, but that's the problem, there isn't enough comedy. Our vampire played by random ass Eddie Murphy is too overtly serious. And that kills the premise of thr film. He's more interested in this being a slasher film and raising the body count rather than get his point across in a hillarious way. The scene with the priest is absolutely the golden gem highlight of the film.

Earlier yesterday, at the beginning of the day long before I watched this film, I watched the two Blacula films. It was easy to make comparisons and contrasts to those films. Just the fact that he was killed Blacula seemed like a joke in itself and that it was going to be a comedy, boy was I sadly misfskened. If you were to go back to see my rating on those films, I found the 2nd one slightly better than the first.

I was elated to find out that there may have been elements passed on from Blacula to this film but this film didn't attempt to be like. The plot is confusing as all hell, the beginning alone will make you lost throughout the film if you pay attention. There isn't really a score. The acting is great, you have a lot of unknowns, but then you have amazing people like Angela Bassett and Eddie Murphy. Like I said, the film is decent but still worth a watch, so check it out.
April 25, 2015
Dead and nailed shut in the coffin.
April 22, 2015
Oldschool Eddie Murphy that provided some good laughs and smartass humor only he could execute properly.
April 20, 2015
While both talented people, Eddie Murphy and Wes Craven can't connect or bring much to the table in Vampire in Brooklyn, Which fails at being scary and/nor funny.
Page 1 of 43