Thirty years ago, Vampire in Brooklyn was branded as Eddie Murphy’s career low point—a baffling misstep that seemed to confirm his creative decline. But what if this so-called flop is actually a misunderstood gem? Today, the film stands as a fascinating oddity, a horror-comedy hybrid that defies easy categorization and offers more than meets the eye. Let’s dive into why this once-maligned movie deserves a second look—and why its flaws might just be its greatest strengths.
The Setup: A Star at a Crossroads
In the early 1990s, Eddie Murphy was a Hollywood titan, but his shine was fading. Fresh off the disappointing Beverly Hills Cop III, a film he reportedly made under duress, Murphy needed a win. Instead, he starred in Vampire in Brooklyn, a Wes Craven-directed horror-comedy that bombed at the box office and earned a dismal 14% on the Tomatometer. Critics panned it, audiences shrugged, and the film quickly became a footnote in Murphy’s career—until it was overshadowed by the even bigger flop, The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Yet, here’s the twist: Vampire in Brooklyn is far more interesting than its reputation suggests.
The Controversy: A Movie Without an Identity?
But here’s where it gets controversial: Was Vampire in Brooklyn a gothic horror, a slapstick comedy, or a genre-bending experiment gone wrong? Behind-the-scenes accounts paint a picture of conflicting motivations. Murphy reportedly wanted to shed his comedic image, yet he allegedly pushed for more humor in the script. He seemed disengaged from the process, and some say he took the role solely to fulfill his contract with Paramount Pictures. Was this a passion project or a contractual obligation? And does it matter? The lack of consensus makes the film messy—but also strangely compelling.
The Story: A Vampire Tale with a Twist
At its core, Vampire in Brooklyn is a simple story: Max (Murphy), possibly the last vampire on Earth, seeks to transform Rita (Angela Bassett), a New York cop who unknowingly carries vampire blood. Think Dracula meets Boomerang. Max is both a villain and a lovelorn romantic, a duality Murphy plays with surprising restraint. While his comedic chops are muted here, his transformations—into a preacher and an Italian-American mobster—are standout moments. And let’s not forget the scene-stealing supporting cast, including Kadeem Hardison and the late, great John Witherspoon.
The Hidden Gem: A Genre-Defying Cult Classic
And this is the part most people miss: Vampire in Brooklyn is a trailblazer. In a genre dominated by white actors, it features a nearly all-Black cast, offering a fresh perspective on vampire lore. It’s not perfect—the humor is hit-or-miss, and the tone is uneven—but that’s what makes it unique. Compared to the lifeless Pluto Nash, this film has energy, ambition, and a sense of playfulness. As a comedy, it’s light on laughs, but as a vampire movie, it’s oddly charming. Plus, Angela Bassett steals the show as the true hero of the story.
The Rebound: A Misfit’s Legacy
Both Murphy and Craven rebounded quickly from this misstep. Murphy scored a massive hit with The Nutty Professor, while Craven revolutionized horror with Scream. Yet, Vampire in Brooklyn remains their most authentically weird collaboration. It’s a film that doesn’t fit neatly into any box—and that’s why it endures as a cult favorite. Maybe it’s better this way: a forgotten curiosity that rewards those willing to look beyond its flaws.
Final Thoughts: Is This Movie Worth Your Time?
Here’s the question: Does Vampire in Brooklyn deserve its bad reputation? Or is it a misunderstood experiment that was ahead of its time? Is it a failure, or a fascinating failure? Let’s be honest—it’s not a masterpiece. But it’s far from worthless. In an era of safe, formulaic blockbusters, its willingness to take risks is refreshing. So, the next time you’re in the mood for something strange, give it a chance. You might just find yourself liking it—flaws and all.
What do you think? Is Vampire in Brooklyn a hidden gem or a deserved flop? Let’s debate in the comments!
