Sorry, this movie sucks

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Omg,I remember seeing it in the movie Theater and walking out of it cuz it was so bad.

Maximillian 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. Vampire in Brooklyn is not as bad as you might have heard but it's not as good as it could have been. For example i enjoyed Eddie's perfomance at first he was a bit menacing and comedic at the same time and that scene in the Alley where he killed those 2 men was great but after a while he started acting like Eddie Murphy instead of a vampire especially the scenes where he had multiple roles? felt like a Norbit rip-off or something. John Witherspoon has some great moments of humot but even that gets old after a while and Angela Bassett she was alright. Overall the perfomances in general weren't bad it's just that this mix of horror and comedy doesn't go well that much especially with 2 so different people infront and behind the camera Wes Craven's Vampire in Brooklyn is the perfect example of a movie with all the right intensions and yet it fails cause it doesn't know what it wants to become or do. (5/10)

Continuing my plan to watch every Eddie Murphy movie in order, I come to Vampire In Brooklyn (1995)Plot In A Paragraph: Maximillian (Murphy) is the only surviving vampire, he must find a mate to keep the line from ending. He knows that a child had been born to a woman who had a vampire father, and he searches for her in Brooklyn. Playing a vampire worked for Cruise in 1994, why not Eddie Murphy a year later. This was Eddie Murphy's last movie for Paramount, and he is on record as saying he only made it, to get out of his contract with them. He also said the reason this movie failed, was because of the wig he wore.I had never seen this movie before, my local video store never even had a copy of it, and he got almost everything ("no demand for it son") in his store. Yet I know a few people who call this under rated. With comments ranging from "It's not bad" and "I liked it" to "It's actually a really good horror"It didn't really work for me on any level. The comedy is slapstick and out of place with the rest of the movie. Played 100% straight or as an outright comedy, I may have enjoyed it more. As it is, it's neither really scary or very funny. It had potential on both fronts, as it is, it settles in the middle and fails on all grounds!! I'm not even sure if I was meant to root for Murphy or not. We do get a first for a Murphy character here.30 mins in, I could have turned it off, but it did get more interesting as it went on. With the exception of the "Bad is Good" Preacher scene, I didn't really enjoy any of it though. Angela Basset was pretty solid and John Witherspoon (so great in Boomerang) brings a smile too. But they seem to be acting in different movies, and that's the problem.In an interview, Wes Craven stated that the movie was difficult to make because Murphy did not want to be funny, instead aiming to play his character straight. He also said in a different interview "Eddie didn't want to be really evil, which i think hampered it massively, because it really needed somebody who could be evil but he kind of wanted to do a horror film but he didn't want to be a bad guy and he wanted to look kind of buff all the time". If Murphy wanted to be taken seriously, playing multiple characters including his Guido character from RAW was the wrong way to go about it. Vampire In Brooklyn was the third Murphy movie in a row to lose money, as it only grossed $19 million (a few thousand more than Best Defence) to end the year the 82nd highest grossing movie of the year.

Wes Craven is one of the most inconsistent directors in horror cinema: when on top form, he is a genius, taking risks with unpredictable projects and as a result, often giving the genre a much needed shot in the arm, as proved by groundbreaking movies like Last House On The Left, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream; at his least inspired, he is a hack, delivering predictably dumb (but still surprisingly enjoyable) trash like Shocker, Deadly Friend and Cursed.Vampire in Brooklyn is something of an oddity in Craven's erratic career: it's definitely not a predictable project for the director—a comedy/horror featuring a predominantly black cast—but it certainly is dumb. Written by Eddie Murphy (obviously having a bit of an off day), the script fails to deliver consistent laughs, and even some inspired imagery from Craven cannot prevent this one from being a somewhat disappointing title in the canon of both star and director.It's a shame, because Murphy can be hilarious and makes for a cool vampire, whilst we all know that Craven is capable of creating iconic scary moments; on this particular occasion, however, the magic just isn't there, and although the film cannot ever be accused of being dull, it is ultimately a forgettable flick that rabid Murphy fans might find enjoyable (the star hams it up to the max), but will probably only be of passing interest to horror fans.5.5 out of 10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.