Believe it or not, Vampire in Brooklyn—once dubbed Eddie Murphy’s biggest misstep—has aged into a surprisingly cool cult classic. Thirty years later, this horror-comedy hybrid is worth a second look, even if it’s just to appreciate its bizarre charm. But here’s where it gets controversial: was this film a misunderstood gem or a chaotic mess? Let’s dive in.
Back in the early ’90s, Eddie Murphy was a Hollywood heavyweight with something to prove. Fresh off the disappointing Beverly Hills Cop III, which felt more like a contractual obligation than a passion project, Murphy starred in Vampire in Brooklyn, directed by horror legend Wes Craven. The result? A box office flop that critics savaged, with a current 14% Rotten Tomatoes score that feels almost generous. It was so bad—or so the story goes—that it was overshadowed by Murphy’s later flop, The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Ouch.
But here’s the twist: Vampire in Brooklyn isn’t just a bad movie. It’s a weird movie, and that’s where its appeal lies. Behind the scenes, the film was a clash of visions. Murphy reportedly wanted to shed his comedic image, yet couldn’t resist injecting humor into the horror. Was it a gothic drama? A fright flick? An action-comedy with fangs? No one seemed to know, and that lack of direction might just be its saving grace. It’s a hot mess, but an interesting one.
The plot is straightforward: Max (Murphy), possibly the last vampire on Earth, tries to turn Rita (Angela Bassett), a New York cop with hidden vampire lineage, into his immortal partner-in-crime. Think Dracula, but with Brooklyn grit and a dash of Murphy’s signature charm. Supporting roles from Kadeem Hardison and John Witherspoon add unexpected flavor, though Murphy’s comedic timing takes a backseat here—intentionally or not.
And this is the part most people miss: Vampire in Brooklyn is a dark mirror to Murphy’s rom-com Boomerang. In both films, Murphy’s character is obsessed with a woman, but here, the stakes are literally life-or-death. While Boomerang is light and playful, Vampire in Brooklyn leans into its genre, giving a nearly all-Black cast a chance to shine in a space typically dominated by white actors. Is it a perfect film? Absolutely not. But is it a fascinating experiment? Absolutely.
Speaking of experiments, remember that scene in Boomerang where Murphy and Halle Berry bond over Star Trek? It’s a subtle nod to Murphy’s love for genre storytelling, something Vampire in Brooklyn tries to capture. Sure, The Adventures of Pluto Nash proved Murphy’s sci-fi ambitions could go horribly wrong, but here, there’s a sense of playfulness that keeps it from being a total disaster.
So, why did it fail so spectacularly? Maybe it was ahead of its time. Or maybe it was just too odd for mainstream audiences. Either way, both Murphy and Craven bounced back the following year—Murphy with The Nutty Professor and Craven with Scream. But Vampire in Brooklyn remains the oddball cousin in their filmographies, a misfit that’s perversely easy to like.
Here’s the real question: Is Vampire in Brooklyn a misunderstood masterpiece or a glorious trainwreck? Let’s be honest—it’s probably both. And that’s exactly why it’s worth revisiting. Whether you love it or hate it, it’s a film that refuses to be forgotten. So, what’s your take? Cult classic or cinematic disaster? Sound off in the comments—let’s debate!
