1992: Best/Favorite Horror Films of Each Year

This is the third entry in a series that I am doing on the best, or at least my favorite, horror films of each year. This series structurally follows the outline that I have set up for my metal albums series. This includes a winning film along with up to five or so honorable mentions for each year. I also throw in some of what I call “tangential bonus films” that incorporate horror elements but, in my view at least, do not primarily fit within the horror genre.

Overall, 1992 was a decent year in horror, and I would say that overall it marked an improvement over 1991. There were some true highlights from this year that even casual horror fans would expect to see on the list. But there were also some cult classics and even a few films that some might not want to classify as horror, but that truly are when you delve into what the actual story is. We get entries from all three of those categories on today’s list. I picked out six of my favorite horror films from 1992, and of course they all come recommended. I also included two entries in the category of the tangential bonus film. I recommend both of those as well, as films that are a better classification fit with other genres though they certainly incorporate some horror elements, and would be of interest to a horror audience.

As always, horror is one of the truly underappreciated film genres, and the 1990s as a decade is one of the underappreciated eras within horror film. That decade is often thought of as a bit of a ‘dark ages’ situation between the numerous horror classics of the 1970s and 1980s and the modern revival of the genre and the emergence of highbrow and artsy horror films during the 2000s and especially during the 2010s. That reason, and that we are now culturally in a bit of a 1990s nostalgia period, is why I wanted to start here in the 1990s and move forward through the decade year by year. There were quite a few quality horror films that came out during the 1990s that are worth rediscovering. So whether you are a horror fan, or just looking for a hit of that sweet 1990s nostalgia, I hope you enjoy this list. Previous lists for 1990 and 1991 are available, so check those out as well.

Winner: Candyman

MPAA Rating: R

The placement of Candyman here at the top of the list for 1992 probably comes as no surprise. It is generally considered one of the best horror films of the decade as well as easily being one of the best slashers of the decade. However, unlike our previous winners on the 1990 and 1991 lists, Candyman did not receive any Academy Awards. Nonetheless, this film is anchored by strong performances by Virginia Madsen and of course Tony Todd in the titular role. The film is based on the Clive Barker short story entitled “The Forbidden”.

As for the plot, the Candyman is presented as an urban legend story akin to Bloody Mary, where if you say his name five times into a mirror he then appears behind you and kills you with a hook. Virginia Madsen plays a graduate student named Helen Lyle who is researching the Candyman legend and the social function of the story in the greater Chicago area as part of her graduate thesis. In this research she learns that the Candyman story is a local legend in Chicago and in particular is centered around the Cabrini-Green housing projects. Here the legend is used by the residents as a metaphor and symbol of the violence and deprivation that surrounds and consumes their lives on a daily basis. We also learn that the figure is based around a black man and artist from the late 19th century that fell in love with and impregnated the daughter of a white man that had hired him for a job. That man organized a lynch mob to have him murdered in a brutal manner. The film works on two levels where Candyman is a metaphor and symbol for urban violence and decay, as well as on the literal level of being a supernatural slasher where he does actually come to kill you if you say his name five times into a mirror. Helen of course tries out the mirror practice but nothing happens when she says it. We learn that she looks like the woman Candyman was in love with and thus he wants to work through her and have her join him in death. People around Helen are killed and she is the primary suspect and is taken into custody and consigned to a psychiatric facility that she eventually escapes from. After escaping she discovers that her husband has been having an affair with a university student. Candyman has also taken a child hostage from Cabrini-Green and Helen sacrifices her life to save the child, and becomes a hero of sorts to the people of Cabrini-Green.

What I actually find most intriguing about the film is how it operates on and succeeds on these multiple levels. While the Candyman is conventionally seen in interpretations of the film as a literal supernatural figure, there is also a less conventional way of viewing the film where the Candyman is purely metaphorical or that it exists purely in the mind of people. For example, there is a way of watching this film where Helen is actually responsible for all of the murders in the second half of the film, and that the Candyman figure is representative of the psychological break that she endures with the combination of digging deeper into and understanding the structural injustice that produced the concentrated poverty and violent conditions that Cabrini-Green embodied and the racial mob violence against Daniel Robitaille (the man the Candyman legend is derived from), as well as the emotional strain in Helen’s home life with her suspicion that her husband is having an affair. There is a way of watching this film where her encounters with Candyman are merely occurring in her own mind, and that he is a secondary persona that acts on her behalf.

The film has spawned three sequels to date including 1995’s “Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh“, 1999’s “Candyman 3: Day of the Dead“, and 2021’s “Candyman“. I do not remember hating any of them, but none of them have truly ever lived up to the original.

Honorable Mention: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

MPAA Rating: R

There have been so many adaptations of Dracula over the decades, going back to truly the beginnings of the genre on film. The two most famous and iconic of these early film adaptations of the classic Dracula story are 1922’s Nosferatu and 1931’s Dracula, the latter of which famously starred Bela Lugosi in the titular role. Again, there have been so many critically and commercially successful adaptations of Bram Stoker’s famous 1897 novel that it almost boggles the mind whenever a new one comes out. What possibly could they do different or better with the story to justify another adaptation? That is certainly the thought that runs through my mind whenever I see that someone is doing another one.

So to answer my own question, there are really three main reasons to watch this 1992 Dracula movie and each not only justifies the existence of this version but also marks this film as one of the best Dracula adaptations ever, and the definitive one of the modern era. The first is the outstanding performance and reinterpretation of the character by Gary Oldman in the titular role. Gary Oldman is generally considered to be one of the best actors of modern times across the various film genres. With this film, Oldman demonstrates that skill in resurrecting an already iconic character and putting his own unique and memorable spin on the character. The second reason why this is a standout film is the production design and execution. The sets, the props, the costumes, the sounds, and everything is just top notch and most importantly they are unique to this movie. This film does not copy the look or feel of previous adaptions, but instead this film has a unique style and it all works. And that is not just my opinion. This film won three Academy Awards in these areas. It won for Best Costume Design, Best Sound Effects Editing, and Best Makeup. It was also nominated for Best Art Direction. Again, all around the production design for this film is fantastic. The third reason is really just having Francis Ford Coppola in the director’s chair. Coppola has worked on numerous iconic films over the years, and here he continues that tradition with creating perhaps the definitive Dracula adaptation of the modern era. The story may be familiar as it has been done literally dozens of times before, but the unique presentation and reinterpretation of the material makes it feel fresh once again.

There are of course a few knocks against this film that keep it from the top spot. While Gary Oldman was a phenomenal actor even back then, you cannot say the same for either Keanu Reeves or Winona Ryder. Both turn in subpar performances even when compared to their other work, and it is all the more noticeable given the number of scenes that they each share with Oldman. Reeves’ attempt at a British accent is infamously bad. However, despite a couple subpar acting performances, we do get some decent performances from veteran supporting actors like Anthony Hopkins and Cary Elwes.

Honorable Mention: The Hand That Rocks the Cradle

MPAA Rating: R

The plot for The Hand That Rocks the Cradle can actually be summarized quite easily, and the trailer does a good job at that. A women is sexually molested by her obstetrician during a visit, and reports him to the state medical board, which leads to more women coming forward with similar stories. The doctor is charged and actually commits suicide rather than be arrested. Because the doctor commits suicide, his widow is unable to access their life insurance policy and thus is forced to sell the home. She plots to get back at the woman that she blames for ‘murdering’ her husband, and proceeds to get a job as the nanny under a different name. From there, she seeks to replace the wife in the household and plots in all manner of ways to drive her crazy and ruin her relationships with others, and even kill people that get in the way of her revenge plans.

Sadly, this type of story has been recycled and told to death in mediocre television movies by like the Lifetime channel and whatnot. Because of that some people might want to dismiss this film as nothing more than that. However, that would be doing this film and the performances within a disservice. Simply put, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle is the highest form of that type of story that I have probably ever seen. Sure, it may have been copied a dozen or so times, but there is a reason for that. When done well, this type of story is highly effective and unnerving. All of the acting performances here are at least decent, but the absolute standout performance that truly elevates the film is Rebecca De Mornay in the villain role. Again, she elevates this film and delivers one of the best villain performances of the year.

Honorable Mention: Dr. Giggles

MPAA Rating: R

I have no idea if this is a popular inclusion for a 1992 horror film list, but damn this movie was fun. In order to be effective, a slasher film has to be distinct in some way, either in brutality, unique kills, memorable villain, or fun and humor, etc. Dr. Giggles falls into the latter two categories, as Larry Drake in the titular role and his character’s endless quipping are truly what make this film work. I had previously only seen Larry Drake in the Darkman movies, and while he is good enough in those films, he really improves his performance in this one. He delivers the precise type of unhinged or deranged performance in infusing the psychotic giggle laughter and quippy kills into the slasher genre. Sure, Freddy Krueger does plenty of puns and quips in the Nightmare on Elm Street sequels, but this is the most effective use of quipping that I have probably ever seen in a horror movie. It achieves a level of consistent and intelligent fun and humor throughout the film without descending too far into campy nonsense (a la the Nightmare sequels).

As for the plot, Larry Drake plays an escaped mental patient who returns to his hometown to continue his father’s murderous medical practice. He begins stalking and killing various people in town but becomes particularly interested in Jennifer (played by Charmed actress Holly Marie Combs) who has a similar heart condition to the one that killed his mother. Dr. Giggles becomes obsessed with her and in his own twisted and insane way wants to help her by giving her a heart transplant.

Overall, while Dr. Giggles might not exactly be a cinematic masterpiece, it is one of the best and one of the most fun slasher movies from the early 1990s. And it is definitely my pick for the second best slasher movie from 1992 (with Candyman obviously being number one).

Honorable Mention: Basic Instinct

MPAA Rating: R

Basic Instinct is the type of film that would have been completely ridiculous if it was in less capable hands. Director Paul Verhoeven knows how to deliver on both the action and violence as well as the intrigue and temptation elements within the film. Sharon Stone also gives a career making performance, and perhaps the best performance of her entire career, as our antagonist Catherine Tramell. Michael Douglas is certainly effective as well, but Sharon Stone absolutely steals every scene that she is in, and she is the true star of the film. It is nice to see that Sharon Stone was nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance, but also disappointing that she was not nominated for an Academy Award.

One of the great and iconic things about this film is that (spoiler alert) Sharon Stone’s character is so obviously the killer that she is basically bragging about it for the entire film, yet she has thought far enough in advance to both be able to cover her tracks and set up enough alibis and misdirection to eventually seduce Michael Douglas’ character and pin the murders on someone else. As I said at the beginning, in lesser hands this film would come off as completely ridiculous and would fall apart, but the combination of Verhoeven’s directing and Stone’s outstanding individual performance makes this film work. In essence, this is a film about a female serial killer that gets away with it once again.

Honorable Mention: Raising Cain

MPAA Rating: R

Brian De Palma has had a long and acclaimed career as a director doing both horror films (1972’s Sisters, 1976’s Carrie) and even more so with mafia movies (1983’s Scarface, 1987’s The Untouchables, and 1993’s Carlito’s Way). While Raising Cain may not reach the heights of those films, it is still a quality entry into his filmography. John Lithgow is the true star here, and he delivers a phenomenal performance as Carter Nix along with Carter’s various other personalities.

I am not even sure how to begin to talk about the plot of this movie. John Lithgow plays a child psychologist named Carter Nix who himself has multiple personality disorder. Carter and one of his personalities, the titular Cain, begin killing mothers and abducting the children for experiments by Carter’s supposedly deceased psychologist father. Carter’s wife has an affair with her ex, played by Steven Bauer. When Carter discovers this infidelity, he attempts to kill her. As police investigate the disappearances, we learn more about Carter’s father who seems to have intentionally created these multiple personalities within his own child (Carter) through repeated abuse and trauma. Carter is eventually able to defeat his father when his daughter Amy is threatened.

This is admittedly a bit of a bonkers film, but it ends up working better than it probably should. And it does so largely through an acting tour de force by John Lithgow in all of his various character personalities throughout.

Tangential Bonus 1: Army of Darkness

MPAA Rating: R

Some might be surprised to see Army of Darkness only as a tangential film and not on the proper list, as well as why it is a 1992 film rather than a 1993 film. For the latter, I classify the year of a film based on its first premiere or official screening anywhere in the world. For Army of Darkness, that was in 1992 even though the film was not widely released in the United States until February of 1993. So thus, it should be considered a 1992 film. And for the former, simply put, I do not consider Army of Darkness to be a true horror film. It is the third entry in Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy. Those first two movies should be considered proper horror movies: certainly 1981’s The Evil Dead, and even 1987’s Evil Dead II though that film injected a considerable amount of humor. The difference between Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness is that the former is a horror film with humor injected throughout, while for the latter the scales and setting are tipped even further. Army of Darkness plays like a fantasy adventure movie or a fantasy comedy movie that just happens to have demons in it. It is overall a lighter film and plays up the action and adventure dimensions to the story that were not present in the prior entries. Thus, it does not really qualify as a proper horror film. However, it is a quality tangential film to the horror genre, and I definitely recommend it to people. And as another tangent, this is a repeat appearance already by director Sam Raimi in my tangential section after 1990’s Darkman. And Army of Darkness was the first film that he directed after Darkman, so it all truly fits together.

Tangential Bonus 2: Man Bites Dog (C’est arrivé près de chez vous)

MPAA Rating: NC17

This one is another truly bizarre film that is in some ways difficult to talk about. It is ostensibly a comedy film in that it is a mockumentary (comedic fictional documentary) about a serial killer. A film crew follows the daily activities of this serial killer as he selects his victims and then dispatches them. You get to hear his musings about myriad topics from his philosophy on life to the minutiae of his craft, such as the weight ratios needed to submerge a dead body when disposing of it. Like all mockumentaries it reaches levels of absurdism, and perhaps the turning point of the film is when the film crew actually begins assisting him in these dealings. Their involvement and their proximity to him would (spoiler alert) lead to their deaths by the end of the film as the enemies of our subject serial killer (named Ben) exact revenge against his family and associates. Again, this is a truly bizarre film, but it is one of the more topically creative as well as somewhat insane uses of the mockumentary format that I have ever seen. Also, this is a Belgian film, so the audio is French language. If you are a horror enthusiast, this film is worth a watch for the insane premise and the competent execution (pun intended) of that insane premise.

Tangential Bonus 3: Batman Returns

MPAA Rating: PG13

1992’s Batman Returns is the second of the two Tim Burton directed Batman films. While it is not quite as good as the first film (from 1989), it showcased Burton’s unique visual and asethetic style, which is certainly familiar and welcome to horror fans. The two Burton Batman films are known for being darker than the two Joel Schumacher directed films that would follow in 1995 and 1997, and that is certainly true. Michael Keaton of course returns as Batman and delivers another solid performance even though his screentime is reduced. The real stars of the film are actually our three (yes, three) villains, and they include Danny DeVito as the Penguin, Christopher Walken as Max Shreck, and Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. The three villains (and the actors portraying them) compete in each scene for who can steal each scene and chew the scenery as much as possible.

Tangential Bonus 4: Ghostwatch

Not Rated

Ghostwatch was a British television movie that presents itself as though it were an actual live television broadcast and uses actual British television news personalities in the cast. The ‘news program’ is providing on-the-scene and studio coverage of an investigation into a poltergeist that is supposedly haunting this house in London. The use of news personalities and the format and presentation as though it was a live broadcast was the true source of terror, since the unknowing audience does not realize that the poltergeist activities that they are seeing on the screen are not in fact real (since this is a film). The film was initially broadcast on BBC1 back on Halloween (October 31) of 1992 and its impact and controversy was immediate as millions of Brits were either terrified that it was real or were loving the Halloween themed ‘trick’ on the audience. The film’s impact was so significant that it was actually banned in Britain for a decade afterwards and has still not been broadcast on television in Britain since.

There are some who might consider Ghostwatch to be a proper horror film, and I understand that view. I do not consider it horror proper anymore because again the fear in the film comes primarily from the viewer’s belief that what they are seeing is an actual television broadcast. Ghostwatch is the type of lightning in a bottle movie and cultural moment that could possibly never be made or pulled off again. Because of that impact and influence on the entire ‘found footage’ or fake documentary style horror films that would become popular, Ghostwatch is an essential viewing for the year for horror fans. However, the effect of the film on the viewer is diminished now 30+ years later because if you are watching this film in the 2020s then it obviously is not a live television broadcast.