Vampire in Brooklyn.

Review #2455: Vampire in Brooklyn.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Maximillian / Preacher Pauly / Guido), Angela Bassett (Detective Rita Veder), Allen Payne (Detective Justice), Kadeem Hardison (Julius Jones), John Witherspoon (Silas Green), Zakes Mokae (Dr. Zeko), Joanna Cassidy (Captain Dewey), W. Earl Brown (Police Officer), and Simbi Khali (Nikki) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left, #2306 - The Hills Have Eyes)

Review: 

"I don't think it's so unusual. Horror is very close to humor. The thing is I wanted the humor in `Vampire in Brooklyn' to come from the story - from the plot, not from Eddie. I wanted Eddie to be essentially a serious character. What I didn't want was just a black version of `Love at First Bite.' I didn't think `Love at First Bite' was very funny. I didn't want the comedy to be nearly that broad. Maybe my sense of humor is a little dry, or subtle, or whatever, but people seem to get it. I kept encouraging Eddie to play it straight.''

On October 27, 1995, a strange curiosity came into theaters: a Wes Craven movie with Eddie Murphy as the star. The story goes that Eddie Murphy was looking for something to just end his contract with Paramount Pictures and he apparently landed on a script that had been written by his brother Charlie alongside Vernon Lynch. Michael Lucker and Chris Parker were called to work on the script (ironically, they had written an Old West script that had intrigued Murphy but not Paramount). Hired to pitch it to Craven before pitching it to Paramount Pictures and then Murphy, they successfully got it greenlit in a matter of weeks. In an interview about the making of the film, Parker stated that the studio, in the first meeting about the movie, told them they wanted the movie to be funny but that Murphy didn't want to be funny and therefore they had to "trick him into being funny", while Lucker speculated that Craven had a tough time getting Murphy to be serious rather than falling back on doing jokes. The studio apparently cut the budget of the film during shooting to where they could not film the intended action scene for the climax. Amidst a production that its shares of troubles* (some from its star), the movie was only a mild success with audiences at the time, only just making double of its reported $14 million budget.* In 2011, Murphy (who at one point labeled the movie as a transitional one in his career) tried to lay blame on the sight of him with long-haired wig (as designed by makeup artist Toy Van Lierop) that was used in the film and reflected that he had to do something to get to do The Nutty Professor (1996). and later jokingly wondered if there was even an "Appreciation Club" for the film. For his part, Craven found it to be an "interesting experience" despite obvious difficulties and the limited potential that came from script/production challenges; Craven bounced back with his next film as a director with Scream (1996).

I will admit that Vampire in Brooklyn had been a longshot candidate for featuring in the past few years, but the chance to talk about a movie that is now three decades old did sound entertaining. And you know what? I liked this movie. Actually, I liked this misfit type of comedy-horror quite a bit, mainly because there is an odd frenzy to how the movie maneuvers itself that is off-putting yet always involving. Horror movies sometimes get a bum rap for being a bit too vicious and comedies sometimes get the "too low" rap, so it is a bit hard to really win with a horror comedy that has some chuckles to go along with vicious little moments that probably play to the cliches you see from certain vampire movies, which I should've seen coming from the name dropping of Blacula (1972). It starts out with a mysterious boat entering a port with seemingly nobody present, for one. The movie might seem confused for those who assume it will go straight horror or, well, comedy - a riff is fine by me (admittedly, it probably is a bit odd that one needs to get the girl before the full moon as a supposed last of his kind because I assumed you could just convert anyone to a vampire, although I guess maybe he's in the killing business instead anyway). It doesn't even take long for our title character to play puns with literally ripping a person's heart out because why not. The setup to eventually getting Murphy and Bassett in the same place just amuses me mostly because (intentionally or not), the vampire picked one of the worst folks to employ as a ghoul buddy, one who decides to resort to using a mannequin hand by the halfway point. I fail to see the problem with Murphy's hair. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) was the far more egregious one, mainly because I still think about that stupid beehive thing from time to time. I just see a cone-shape of hair, focus back to Murphy and move on, to be honest. Besides, the vampire effects utilized from time to time are pretty fascinating to eventually see play out (after the movie shows the various vampire habits, ranging from the wolf thing in the intro to...renovating messy rooms). And then of course there is Murphy and Bassett, who each do pretty well with what they interpret the film to be. Murphy might have had a bit of trepidation of what he really wanted to do with this film, as evidenced by a movie that has him do an opening narration to go along with playing multiple characters (for separate gags). Love it or hate it, you basically get a compromise that has peaks and valleys of humor with some interest in playing a quality villain that I like just fine. 

Bassett holds her own with the clash that arises in oneself being challenged in who they really are beyond what the flesh shows that makes for compelling vulnerability beyond just having her be an object to be moved around. Her parts of the film are basically not too far off from what you might see in a gaslighting thriller, and she makes that count for something, arguably. Hardison and his rapid decay as the toadie fit for the streets is pretty funny in what you can show for a suck-up not too far off from old Renfield, and Witherspoon pops in occasionally to pair off for coarse amusement. Payne makes a fine ordinary performance. In general, I took the movie as just having fun playing with the audience about where it really wants to go in one trying to escape the fate of a doomed race vs having situations as ridiculous as impersonating an Italian to rob a place only to shoot down a cat. I don't even hate the climax, mainly because sure, let's end it in an apartment rather than going all out on a bridge or a church like seemingly any other vampire movie just to really curve things to an offbeat angle. I particularly like the ending, in which you can interpret as playfully saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same, even for creatures of the night. As a whole, Vampire in Brooklyn is a delightfully strange little movie, managing to evoke a sense of joy in its macabre aspects that I thought was a neat ride.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Of sadder note is the loss of stuntwoman Sonja Davis, who suffered a horrific accident in November 1994 that saw her die from her injuries during a stunt.

*For reference, more people on opening weekend went to see Powder [1995], a movie made by an actual convicted child sex offender, than Vampire in Brooklyn. 

Not to editorialize, but the Ineligible List includes Jeepers Creepers 1-3 because a pedophile directed those movies.

Redux: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Redux #352: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Cast: 

Bob Hoskins (Eddie Valiant), Christopher Lloyd (Judge Doom), Charles Fleischer (Roger Rabbit, Benny the Cab, Greasy and Psycho), Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme), Joanna Cassidy (Dolores), Kathleen Turner (Jessica Rabbit), Alan Tilvern (R.K. Maroon), Lou Hirsch (Baby Herman), David L. Lander (Smart Ass), Fred Newman (Stupid), June Foray (Wheezy and Lena Hyena), Mel Blanc (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Tweety Bird, and Sylvester), Joe Alaskey (Yosemite Sam), and Wayne Allwine (Mickey Mouse) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express)

Review: 

On June 22, 1988, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released in theaters. It was a solid movie that marked a new high point in integrating animation and live action in cinema. There had been a handful of films that had animation within a primary live-action setting, such as with Song of the South (1946) and Mary Poppins (1964). But this was something quite special, from its director in Robert Zemeckis all the way down to a lead actor that had to spend several scenes having to act again thin air. A graduate of USC Film School, Zemeckis had directed four films before this one: I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978) and Used Cars (1980), Romancing the Stone (1984), and Back to the Future (1985). The success of Stone had been preceded by two audience flops (both of which were produced by Steven Spielberg), but even before then he had an interest in directing a project that was to adapt the novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, originally published in 1981 by Gary K. Wolf. Shortly after publication, Walt Disney Productions (as headlined by Ron W. Miller at the time) bought the film rights to the mystery fantasy novel in an attempt to make a blockbuster production. You may remember that this is the period where Disney tried to branch to more interesting work beyond what they had done in live action, which namely involved films such as Tron (1982) to go with a small collection of animated features. Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman wrote a number of drafts that eventually became a screenplay that did away with the original setting that involved comic strip characters (and a darker ending) for an alternative 1947 Hollywood with Golden Age animation characters. Disney tried to make to test footage with Darrell Van Citters as animation director (and Paul Reubens as voice for the title character). However, by 1985, Disney (who ousted Miller, champion of the project) decided to partner with Amblin Entertainment (headlined by Spielberg), which was a deal that would see a budget just under $30 million (after a projection of it being for $50 million) and complete creative control for Zemeckis and Spielberg...and the former decided to pick who he called the best animator in the world to do the film: Richard Williams. The son of an illustrator and painter, Williams was inspired by a childhood showing of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) to become an animator, and by the time he was a student at the Ontario College of Art he already was a commercial artist. He did a variety of short films and segments after the success of The Little Island (1958), with his work on the short film A Christmas Carol (1971) garnering him his first Academy Award. He did not like the idea of moving to the States to work on the film with the Disney bureaucracy, so they shifted production to London (they also made a deal to help him finish a film he had been making on-and-off since 1964 with The Thief and the Cobbler, but that is its own can of worms); his intent of breaking the animation rules (for which one stressed to not move the camera, which Williams felt was animators just being lazy) was helped with Industrial Light and Magic, who dealt with optical composition  as explained by the supervisor for the film in Ed Jones here (if one wants to hear a perspective within animators, click here). At any rate, with a budget that ballooned to over $50 million, the film (released under the Touchstone Pictures label, which had been created by Miller) was a major success in its time, garnering four Academy Awards that dealt with editing (Arthur Schmidt), sound effects editing, visual effects (Ken Ralston, Williams, Edward Jones, and George Gibbs), and a special achievement award for Williams.

As explained by associate producer Don Hahn years later, Zemeckis had an intent to do animation with live action in a "very contemporary way", which mainly involved a camera that would move to go in a moody film noir. There would be various methods used to help with making sure the live actors (Hoskins, mostly) would interact with something that could be transferred to making it look like he is at eye level with the toons (there were also a few sequences with blue screen, which can be seen in a certain home Blu-ray release as a special feature), such as: mime artistry, puppeteering, and robotic arms. Charles Fleischer dressed up in a rabbit costume and acted as a stand-in behind camera for a wide variety of scenes. As a whole, it is a hodgepodge movie that is one part cornucopia of cartoon characters from the past such as Betty Boop or Yosemite Sam, one part film noir and also one part comedy. What a wonderful film to view through the lens of interaction, one that is consistently on edge to either play noir or comedy without breaking out one false note in its 104-minute runtime. Oh sure, the scenes and bits spent with the toon characters are a delight (because they aren't mere cameos for the sake of being there), but it is the performance of Hoskins (who had plenty of theater experience before doing film) in versatility that makes the whole magic act work as well as it does. Imagine having to act in a film where you have to do mime training to go along with having to interact with characters that aren't really there on set beyond a stand-in. As such, he excels at interaction on eye level and in his timing when it comes to both noir and as straight man when paired with Fleischer (remember, he was in a bunny suit on the side), who makes for a quality comedic presence in blustering clownishness with rapid-fire pace. Turner was actually not credited for her role in the film (nor was Amy Irving for the introductory song), which she described as one where "the whole body is the breath". It certainly is a relaxed way of doing a sultry-but-moral noir player. Lloyd is perfectly stiff as one would hope from such an imposing figure that makes the resulting climax all the more interesting within its payoff (who better to turn a place of cartoon mayhem into one of business mayhem than a judge?). The other live action players do well within the detective story reaches that mainly involve a strait-laced Cassidy or oddballs in Kaye and Tilvern. The Ink & Paint Club probably represents the best opportunity to show just how far one could go in devastating brilliance of the link in animation and live action for quality enjoyment that keeps your attention in humorous elegance. The build-up to actually reaching Toontown makes for quite a quality payoff when one gets to see a sequence of Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse on the same screen (with the same amount of time together, per agreement), which is particularly special because it still remains the only time the two have been in the same screen (this was the last appearance of Bugs Bunny as voiced by Blanc in a feature before his death in 1989). It isn't a movie just about seeing what character shows up, of course, because the main point of the film is to show just how much fun one can have in the art of blending animation and potboiler adventure that is neat in its manic execution. As a whole, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a treat to watch from start to finish, one that benefits from a wonderful performance from Hoskins and the contributions of Zemeckis, Williams and company to deliver a highly watchable movie in all of the right ways that stands the test of time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.