Vampire in Brooklyn (1995)

n

nTitle: Vampire in Brooklyn (1995)

n

nDirector: Wes Craven

n

nCast: Eddie Murphy, Angela Bassett, Allen Payne, KadeemnHardison, John Witherspoon, Zakes Mokae

n

nWho knows why it happens, but sometimes audiences reject anfilm for the stupidest of reasons, for example, in an interview for Rolling Stone magazine, when Eddie Murphy was askednabout Vampire in Brooklyn, he said that the movie failed to become a hit becausenof the hair style he used in it. According to Murphy, it was all because of thenwig he wore for the whole thing, it made it look as if Murphy had straightenednhis hair in the same way that Ron O’Neil straightened his hair out in Super Flyn(1972). To me it’s just another look, people can wear their hair however theynchoose to. I don’t know, whatever the case might be, apparently people hatednMurphy’s hair for this film. Me? I think Murphy looks kind of cool wearing thenstraight hair and I certainly don’t think its reason enough to hate this movie.n I just happened to give it the oldnre-watch and ended up liking it.

n

n

nOn this film we meet a vampire called Maximillian, who arrivesnat the New York City shore in a boat, filled with dead people. You see he is onnthe lookout for a female who unbeknownst to her is of his own heritage. Poornold Maximillian doesn’t want to go through eternity alone. It’s that age oldnvampire problem, who shall I spend the rest of eternity with? So Maximillianngoes about it same way Dracula would. He chooses a ghoul, finds his woman (whonhappens to be Angela Bassett) and proceeds to charm the pants off of her,nliterally. Will she fall for his charms or see past his façade? So basicallynthis is a retelling of Dracula, but in a modern setting. We go through the samenbeats as a Dracula film, but within a contemporary setting. Maximillian finds anplace to live but it isn’t Carfax Abbey, it’s Brooklyn.  He gets a ghoul, who of course eats insectsnand roaches, but he isnt a madman, he’s a street hustler. He meets the woman ofnhis dreams, but she isnt a debutant, she’s a detective named ‘Rita’ whichnsounds a hell of a lot like ‘Mina’ from Bran Stoker’s novel. In Bram Stoker’snnovel, Dracula sends a black carriage with black horses to pick Mina up, onnthis film he sends his limo. So yeah, a retelling of Dracula, but with a modernntwist. Because of this, there’s not a whole lot of surprises in ways of story,nthis of course is the same problem that a lot of vampire movies face. They tellnBram Stokers novel all over again, they simply change the setting, or the era,nbut it’s the same story, so if you’ve seen your share of vampire movies, thennyou know what you’re gonna get with Vampire in Brooklyn.

n

n

nBut fear not, what makes this film interesting are othernfactors. First of all, the cast here is 95% black, so this is a black versionnof Dracula, something along the veins of what was done in the blaxsploitationnclassics like Blacula (1972) or Scream Blacula Scream (1973), so that’s a cool elementnabout it. The other element is placing a vampire in the heart of Brooklyn, NewnYork. So suddenly we see Maximillian the Caribbean vampire dealing withngangsters trying to kill him, going into night clubs in search of his love, heneven ends up dancing the night way with Rita. So what makes this one set itselfnapart is the New York setting and the all black cast. Then, during its secondnhalf the film diverts to a passionate love story between the head vampire andnthe object of his affections, detective Rita. Funny how at heart most vampirenmovies are about love huh? And passionate love at that! Most of the time,nvampire films serve as an allegory for the art of seduction, with the headnvampire playing the role of the ultimate seducer, the guy with the irresistiblenwords and the hypnotic stare that will make a woman forget the world;  Vampire in Brooklyn is no exception.  

n

n

nThe film comes to us from horror legend Wes Craven, the guynbehind A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and a myriad other horror films, likenfor example the entire Scream franchise. This was his first and so far onlynattempt at directing a vampire film, but he does it with great aplomb. Thenhorror aspects of the film are handled rather well. The movie, while a comedy,ndoes not lose its horror edge. I mean, Maximillian turns into a wolf, rips a gangstersnheart out and then shreds another gangster to pieces  limb by limb! When Maximillian vamps out, henlooks pretty damn demonic! The ghoul pretty much ends up looking like a zombie,nrotting away piece by piece, so it has some decent make up effects work,ngruesome stuff. I’d say that Craven juggles the comedy, the romance and thenhorror aspects pretty well, never settling into one for a long time, the filmnis always shifting it’s tone. I am not a huge fan of the Scream films (actuallynI can’t stand em!) so to me, this was the last good horror film that Cravenndirected. After this he made the dreaded Cursed (2005) and My Soul to Take (2010),nnot exactly the cream of the crop in terms of horror. For me, Vampire innBrooklyn was the last good hurrah from one of the great horror directors.

n

n

nAnd speaking of the comedic aspects of the film, having EddienMurphy might give you the idea that he will play a “funny vampire”, but he doesn’t.nHe plays Maximillian like a cool, suave dude. The funny of the film doesn’tncome from Murphy playing Maximillian. On this one he plays his character as ansmooth ladies man who can sweep a girl of her feet with a few words. Murphynobviously wanted to play this character as a sensual force, not as a comedicnelement. What they did do to amp up the comical aspects of the film was surroundnMurphy with comedic actors, like for example, John Witherspoon who plays SilasnGreen, the landlord of the building in which Maximillian and his ghoul residenin, he has some pretty funny moments, I mean, Witherspoon just talks and I’mncracking up. We also get Kadeem Hardison playing the ghoul, who crumbles apartn(literally) as the movie progresses, this aspect of the character lends itselfnfor some funny moments as well. But I know what you’re thinking, so this is ancomedy in which Eddie Murphy isn’t even trying to be funny? And you’d be wrong,nthere’s a moment in which Maximillian disguises himself as a preacher, which isnjust hilarious, quite possibly the funniest moment in the whole movie. Then, inntypical Eddie Murphy fashion, he also plays another character, an Italianngangster wannabe with a big mouth. So be on the look out for this, Murphy playsna couple of roles on this one, same as he’s done in other films like Coming tonAmerica (1988) and The Nutty Professor (1996).

n

n

nAn interesting aspect of the film: this is a film that playsna lot with vampire lore; it doesn’t follow vampire rules so much. We’ve allnseen this in many vampire films, filmmakers will make their vampires do the strangest things thatnvampires aren’t supposed to do. For example, in Vampire in Brooklyn Maximillian can makendogs turn into a flying ball of fire, he can make fire appear outnof thin air, and that’s just for starters…Maximillian’s got some strange tricks up his sleeve. So anyways,nclosing words about Vampire in Brooklyn is that it’s not as bad as you’ve been led tonbelieve, I actually think it’s a pretty cool vampire flick. The ending promisesna possible sequel which never came out because the film wasn’t a real success,nstill, I happen to think it received the stake to the heart unfairly. Time to unearthnthis one and give it a good watch come next Halloween!

n

nRating:  3 ½ out of 5  

n

n