Vampire in Brooklyn (58%)

Director: Wes Craven     Cast: Eddie Murphy, Angela Bassett     Genre: Horror/Comedy

Runtime: 108 minutes     Release Date: October 27th, 1995     Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1

Back in 1995, when I was just 16, I raced to the theatre to see Vampire in Brooklyn. I was a fan of Eddie Murphy (it wasn't clear that he was no longer funny yet) and it was directed by Wes Craven. Craven's last film was Wes Craven's New Nightmare and it was amazing (I didn't know at the time that Craven didn't have many good movies to his name). Wes Craven, Eddie Murphy, horror and comedy; what could go wrong?

Leaving the theatre that fateful day in 1995 I was sourly disappointed. I hated it. It wasn't funny and it wasn't scary and it was boring and somewhat stupid. That's what I had thought back then and having just watched it again for the first time since, I was expecting to hate it even more. But I didn't hate it this time. I mean it wasn't amazing by any stretch of the imagination, or even that good but it wasn't as bad as I remember either. 

Eddie Murphy plays Maximilian, a vampire who comes to Brooklyn to find a half vampire half human by the name of Rita, played by Angela Bassett. Rita is a detective and a painter, painting weird scenes from dreams that end up predicting future events. Can she resist the pull of Maximilian's spell and save herself and others around her?

Like I said, this film was better than I remembered it. I was dreading watching it and expected it to be as bad as Deadly Friend if not as bad as the terrible Swamp Thing. Instead it sits up there with such middling films as The People Under the Stairs and Invitation to Hell. It's not great, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't a Craven or Murphy fan, but oddly enough I was never bored watching it.

The Good:

There are a few good things about the film, not many but a few. Craven directs the film well, with a sure and steady hand, and elevates what could of been a complete mess into something coherent and engaging. It's not a masterful job but it is much better than his early work. The music is pretty intense throughout and is an involving score but there are times when  it way to overbearing compared to the action on the screen.

Murphy gives a good performance in the lead, and in typical fashion he plays two other characters. All three characters are different enough, but the preacher comes off a little too ridiculous. His make-up for all three characters is pretty convincing and well done as is the vampire, and his ghoul's make-up. Angela Bassett, naturally gives the best performance in the film, radiating beauty and gravitas that no one else can compete with. Other than Zakes Mokae (from The Serpent and the Rainbow) who gives another good performance, the rest of the acting is passable but nothing special.

The film, in the end, is never boring and at 108 minutes it never drag. This is most definitely due to the decent editing and Craven's direction, both transcending past the weak script and the lack of originality.

The Bad:

The film's story isn't that original and as such is a story that has been seen many times before. It does have a few things (Brooklyn, the Ghoul falling apart) that give it a new spin but otherwise it is as close to a generic vampire flick as you can get. It's also not very scary for a horror film and not very funny for a comedy. There are few, very few, funny moments and most of the jokes are stale rehash's of moments from other movies.

Then there is the highly inconsistant lighting. In some shots it's dusk while in others it's completely dark. Speaking of dark, the film at times is so dark it becomes hard to see what's going on without squinting the eye but at times the film looks rather good. It's as if there were two different cinematographers working on separate days and each one not knowing what the other was doing. It really is rather jarring.

The Ugly:

Maximilan the vampire can really do anything here. He does whatever the story needs him to do which for the most part makes no sense. For some reason he starts out as a wolf. A vampire who is also a werewolf. Hmmm? Ok. Eat that Underworld. Plus he is a shapeshifting, voice imitating, spell casting vampire. It really makes no sense what good ol' Max could do.

And for some reason, all his powers and everything that he is, the last of the strong and blood sucking vampires of our world, is reduced to a ring. Somehow a ring Max wears on his finger is what makes him a vampire. Put it on someone else and viola, they are now a vampire. That is sloppy story telling at it's finest.

And again, it's just not very funny! The People Under the Stairs is funnier than this movie. So is Shocker and that one I don't even think was meant to be a comedy. And it's just not very scary! It sure tries to be but never ends up getting there. The script gets in the way of creating any real chills, thrills and laughs.

Verdict:

While not as bad as I had originally thought and had therefore expected, Vamps in Brook still isn't what I would call a good movie. I never looked at my watch once, and never cared to as the film did move at a good pace. But with a poor script and moments so illogical they make Friday the 13th look like Shakespeare, I really can't recommend this film. If you are a die hard Craven lover, or you think Eddie Murphy is the saviour of modern cinema than give this a shot otherwise there are plenty of other films out there that are worth seeking out over this.

            Re-playability: 4 out of 10     Directing: 7 out of 10     Originality: 5 out of 10                 

Costumes and Make-up: 7 out of 10     Acting: 7 out of 10     Editing: 7 out of 10

Cinematography: 5 out of 10     Music: 7 out of 10     Script: 3 out of 10

         Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects: 6 out of 10                  

Total Score = 58%