Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Vampire in Brooklyn
Metascore
27 out of 100

Generally unfavorable - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 17
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 17
  3. Negative: 8 out of 17
view
per page
  1. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Peter Stack
    50
    Vampire in Brooklyn is neither funny nor frightening and comes up a tedious middle-road hybrid from veteran scaremeister Wes Craven, who directed.
  2. San Francisco Examiner
    Reviewed by: Scott Rosenberg
    50
    Vampire is hardly a consequential film, nor does it suggest hitherto buried reserves of Murphy's talent. But it's a diverting mixture of horror, romance and comedy.
  3. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    50
    Vampire in Brooklyn, a purported "comic tale of horror and seduction" that is neither funny nor frightening, just unpleasant.
  4. Boston Globe
    Reviewed by: Jay Carr
    50
    Vampire in Brooklyn isn't a disaster. In fact, it has some funny moments. But it's a long way from being the comeback movie Eddie Murphy needs. [27 Oct 1995, p.57]
    All this critic's reviews
  5. ReelViews
    Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    50
    The problem here isn't as much the talent in front of the camera as it is the weak and hackneyed script. Vampire in Brooklyn is in need of an infusion (or should that be transfusion?) of originality and creativity -- two qualities that are blatantly absent.
  6. The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
    Reviewed by: Liam Lacey
    50
    The movie features Eddie Murphy as a vampire who is both cool and sucks. The same evaluation might apply to the entire film, which is neither as good as it might be nor as bad as you might expect. The long- in-the-tooth Dracula story, which has been updated and set in the black community of contemporary Brooklyn, is a pulpy mishmash of horror and comedy, equal parts the product of its comedian star and its creepshow director, Wes Craven. [1 Nov 1995, p.C2]
    All this critic's reviews
  7. Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Reviewed by: William Arnold
    50
    The unlikely marriage of Murphy and Craven is indeed strange, and it results in what often seems to be two diametrically opposed movies in one. Still, it's not quite as bad an idea as it sounds, and the movie is passably entertaining. [27 Oct 1995, p.30]
    All this critic's reviews
  8. Empire
    Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    40
    While this may not quite be a stake through the heart, Wes Craven's curious mix of the comic and the horrific is another nail in Eddie Murphy's career coffin.
  9. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    40
    Neither all that scary nor all that hilarious, Vampire in Brooklyn falls directly between the two, into the valley of mediocrity.
  10. USA Today
    Reviewed by: Susan Wloszczyna
    38
    Not even scaremeister director Wes Craven can awaken this story. Murphy's pale efforts are enough to make one fondly recall Blacula. Now that was one sucker who knew how to make a film that didn't. [27 Oct 1995, p.4D]
    All this critic's reviews
  11. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    25
    The movie is unpleasant to look at. It's darker than "Seven," but without sufficient purpose, and my overall memory of it is of people screaming in the shadows. To call this a comedy is a sign of optimism; to call it a comeback for Murphy is a sign of blind faith.
  12. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Gene Siskel
    25
    For years I've criticized Murphy for not working with the best directors or powerful female co-stars. But he does that here, and his movie is still a clunker. Relatives are listed in the credits; maybe he needs to stop trying to completely control the films he makes. Either that or it's time for another stand-up concert film. [27 Oct 1995, p.B]
    All this critic's reviews
  13. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    25
    Vampire in Brooklyn is a horror comedy that mixes lame blood-pellet effects with lame gags, and it clunks along on a series of interchangeably deserted streets that manage to look dank and overlit at the same time.
  14. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Jack Mathews
    20
    There isn't a moment of genuine suspense or tension in the film, and the paltry laughs are supplied not by Murphy but by Hardison, whose character, a lowlife Brooklyn habitue forcefully turned into the vampire's bug-eating sidekick, spends the entire movie moaning about his decomposing body and embarrassing the boss with his earthy patter. [27 Oct 1995, p.1]
    All this critic's reviews
  15. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Desson Howe
    20
    Eddie Murphy plays it straight rather than bawdy in A Vampire in Brooklyn. It takes some getting used to. As if to make up for all this seriousness, he plays a few funny characters in disguise. But despite his omnipresence, he seems comically missing.
  16. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Hal Hinson
    20
    Murphy has said that he wanted the picture to work both as a comedy and a horror movie, but he has succeeded at neither. Director Craven manages to wedge in some of his signature bits, but can't keep the comic elements in balance with the horror, and as a result there's no tension or dramatic pull.
  17. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Caryn James
    0
    Like so many Eddie Murphy misfires, Vampire in Brooklyn has no idea how to capitalize on the actor's immense appeal. The film was directed by the horror master Wes Craven and it turns out to be an Eddie Murphy-Wes Craven movie that is not funny or scary. Now that's a nightmare.
prev next
Page:
  • 1