Eddie Murphy used to have something to lose. These days, he’s a legend afforded some good will coasting, with a 2020s career that’s half resurgent – he’s already made more live-action movies in the 2020s than he did in the 2010s – and half shrug, considering every one of those movies was for a streaming service. But 30 years ago, Murphy reached what was then considered a baffling nadir by starring in Vampire in Brooklyn, a horror comedy from director Wes Craven. Following the vast creative and commercial disappointment of Beverly Hills Cop III, a return to his signature character and franchise that Murphy seemed to be making under duress, one of the biggest stars in Hollywood needed to prove himself again. Vampire in Brooklyn did the exact opposite.

Vampire in Brooklyn made less than Beverly Hills Cop III. It made less than almost every other movie in his filmography to that point. It currently sits at 14% on the Tomatometer, and that includes some retrospective appreciations. The contemporaneous reviews were arguably even worse. It began to recede further from memory when it lost the title of Murphy’s biggest flop to The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Even a detailed oral history of the making of Vampire in Brooklyn, written for its 20th anniversary back in 2015, has been forgotten; it’s most accessible via the Internet Archive! (Unsurprisingly, Murphy and Craven did not participate.)

That oral history describes, charitably, a movie made out of murky but conflicting motivations: Murphy is described variously as wanting to avoid his funnyman image (which is consistent from stories about Beverly Hills Cop III from the same period); wanting to inject too much humor into the horror proceedings; seeming entirely disengaged from the filmmaking process at nearly every step; and wanting to do the movie primarily to stick it to longtime home studio Paramount Pictures. (Murphy himself has claimed he was essentially made to do the movie in order to finish his Paramount contract. Maybe he’s leaving out that it was Murphy himself applying the pressure.) Was this a gothic horror drama, a fright flick, or an action-comedy with some vampire stuff thrown in? There doesn’t seem to be a consensus, which makes it pretty hard to make a great movie.

This kind of conflict can, however, result in an interestingly weird movie, and Vampire in Brooklyn is that. Its underlying story is simple: Max (Eddie Murphy) maybe the world’s last vampire, and seeks to fully transform Rita (Angela Bassett), a New York cop who doesn’t realize she’s already half vampire, into one of his kind. Not unlike the central vampire in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Max is both evil and lovelorn, and tempts Rita with his power as he commits various vampiric atrocities. Kadeem Hardison and John Witherspoon turn up as supporting scene-stealers.

It’s true that Murphy’s lead role is not very funny, though his signature makeup turns when Max assumes the form of both a preacher and Italian-American criminal are pretty solid stuff. Moreover, the way that Murphy isn’t that funny here doesn’t quite match up with the genuine listlessness and hostility in Beverly Hills Cop III. There may have been plenty of both in real life, but on screen, I swear, this plays a bit closer to Boomerang than you might expect. That then-recent Murphy romantic comedy is one of his best of the ’90s; in it, he’s funny but also relaxed, seemingly happy to cede some of the laughs to co-stars (including John Witherspoon; the man was invaluable) so he can focus on getting the girl. Vampire in Brooklyn is like a dark mirror to that movie; again, Murphy’s character is fixated on a woman, and again the movie takes his relationships seriously, even if there’s silly stuff throughout.

There’s another scene in Boomerang that reflects on Vampire in Brooklyn, in an oblique sort of way. Murphy and Halle Berry are relaxing on the couch together, watching TV, and they come across an episode of Star Trek, which they bond over. Murphy is apparently a Trek fan in real life; he was discussed as a possible co-star of Star Trek IV, and his affection for the series comes through clearly in this sweet scene where two Black characters talk about a show that might stereotypically be associated with white nerds. I have no idea whether Murphy feels similarly about monster movies, but Vampire in Brooklyn has some of that sense of play, providing space for a nearly all-Black cast to work in a genre where white actors have often taken center stage. This isn’t a foolproof method; The Adventures of Pluto Nash gave Murphy his sci-fi vehicle, and it truly does suck, a shockingly worthless and lifeless movie. Vampire in Brooklyn, though, is not! As an Eddie Murphy Comedy, maybe it’s a bit soft on the laughs. But as a vampire movie, it’s pretty funny and cool! The actual hero of the story is Angela Bassett! What’s not to like?

Well, plenty as it turned out, but then, maybe it’s fine that this movie quickly faded from view; maybe it’s more fun as a cult object, and more valuable as a palate cleanser. Both Murphy and Craven rebounded from Vampire in Brooklyn the following year: Murphy had The Nutty Professor, his biggest hit in almost a decade, and Craven had Scream, his biggest movie ever, inspiring a franchise that continues to this day. Those were both back-to-basics moves (Murphy doing broad comedy in multiple guises; Craven going back to slashers) with some new tricks (Murphy playing a whole family’s worth of characters; Craven perfecting the meta-horror he tried out in New Nightmare). They’re both more traditionally successful than Vampire in Brooklyn. But that only makes this misfit horror comedy more authentically alienated from humanity – and perversely easy to like.

Jesse Hassenger (@rockmarooned) is a writer living in Brooklyn. He’s a regular contributor to The A.V. Club, Polygon, and The Week, among others. He podcasts at www.sportsalcohol.com, too.

Watch Vampire in Brooklyn on Paramount+