1994: Best/Favorite Horror Films of Each Year

This is the fifth entry in a series that I am doing on the best, or at least my favorite, horror films of each year. It is amazing that I am already halfway through the decade. 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. These tangential bonus films are thus not actually horror films per se, but are films that should be enjoyed by horror fans for their comedic or other use of horror elements and subject matter.

Overall, 1994 was a good year in horror, and it was perhaps a step up in quality compared to the previous few years. There are some unconventional (and potentially controversial) choices on this list, but I stand by them both in terms of their quality and their classification as horror. And as per usual, there were also some obvious choices for 1994 that horror fans would expect to see on here, as these films regularly make appearances on best of the decade lists. I picked out six of my favorite horror films from 1994, and of course they all come recommended. I also went overboard and included four entries in the category of the tangential bonus film. I recommend 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. Some common themes amongst several of the horror films on this list are reflexivity, the blurring of the real world and the fictional world, and the vulgarity and danger of media sensationalism. Several of the films approach this from different angles and accomplish this in a variety of ways, but these types of through lines between films of the same year provide an interesting basis to reflect on society at the time.

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 dominance of highbrow, artsy, or ‘elevated’ horror films during the late 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 in the 1990s and proceed 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 horror lists for 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 are available, so check those out as well.

Winner: Wes Craven’s New Nightmare

MPAA Rating: R

If you were to put together a list of films that were ahead of their time, then this one would have to be on there. For as groundbreaking as Scream would be two years later in 1996, this film immediately preceding it in Wes Craven’s filmography is arguably even more bold and creative when it comes to meta-horror. It is so bold in fact that some film critics at the time did not appreciate all that it was doing and still dismissed it as just another slasher. While the A Nightmare on Elm Street series is one of the classic examples of a horror franchise brought down and trivialized by inferior and derivative sequels, the series also established how to do two different types of great horror sequels. And of course, the three movies in this series that are actually good were the ones where Wes Craven was involved. He of course wrote and directed the classic 1984 original film, and then was a screenwriter for the third film in 1987. I have said in previous lists how A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors is one of those definitive horror sequels that functions as a model for how to do horror sequels well. That is, you maintain the core ethos of the established film world but take the story in a different direction that is still grounded in that established world. Now ten years after the original, Wes Craven returns to the franchise he created to both show another way to do a great horror sequel as well as pivot toward the creative direction that he would continue down for much of the remainder of the decade with the Scream series and the subgenre that we now call meta-horror or the meta-slasher.

New Nightmare is the seventh film in the franchise, and is the only film in the series to engage with themes of reflexivity in its narrative and actually step outside of the film world in which the characters live. This film reflects back on the past ten years of this iconic horror series and asks questions about fan culture and the place of horror films within society. It does this be setting the narrative within the ‘real world’ where director Wes Craven, actress Heather Langenkamp who played final girl Nancy Thompson in the first film, actor Robert Englund who iconically played Freddy Krueger in all of the films to that point, and Robert Shaye the founder of New Line Cinema (the film studio known as ‘the house that Freddy built’) are real people that made these A Nightmare on Elm Street films. The film explores the meta-concept of a malignant or demonic force that had been held back by the success of the film series now trying to enter the ‘real world’ in the guise of Freddy Krueger through the people involved with the original film. Through the visions in his dreams, Wes Craven is writing the script for a new Nightmare film but it is in this blurring of the real world and the film world where this force is trying to crossover into our world. Thus, Craven in essence is able to see this future but cannot control how it will develop. He merely writes the ‘script’ according to what he sees. Heather Langenkamp is brought into the narrative because she portrayed final girl Nancy Thompson who defeated Freddy Krueger in the original film. In this blurred reality, for this evil force Heather Langenkamp as a person and Nancy Thompson as a film character are one and the same. Thus, if this evil force is to successfully crossover into our world then it must first defeat ‘Nancy’.

While a few previous horror films have touched on aspects of reflexivity, and I mentioned that aspect of the film Popcorn back on the 1991 list, none have truly delved into it with this level of depth and sophistication, nor with this level of creative success. The overarching story is quite strong and is executed well, but there are also so many great moments and great little nuggets and callbacks to the original film that fans will recognize and appreciate. This is one of those movies that I enjoyed the first time that I saw it as a general fan of the franchise, but I have only grown to love and appreciate it more with each viewing as I have matured and further explored the landscape of film and in particular of horror films. While this film is generally well regarded nowadays by critics and fans, I still think it is significantly underrated.

Honorable Mention: In the Mouth of Madness

MPAA Rating: R

In the Mouth of Madness did not receive a widespread theatrical release until early 1995, which is why some 1990s horror lists will place it as a 1995 film. However, the film first premiered late in 1994, so thus by my rules it must be considered a 1994 film. Anyway, In the Mouth of Madness is another one of these beloved horror films from the decade, or at least it is beloved by horror fans. In a way, it actually shares a lot in common with the aforementioned New Nightmare in featuring themes of reflexivity, fan culture and the impact of the horror genre on society, and the blurring of the real world with the fictional world. Where New Nightmare did this within the context of slasher films, In the Mouth of Madness does it (as a film obviously) through horror literature, and in particular through a fusion of two of horror’s most important and influential writers, Stephen King and H.P. Lovecraft. Here the horror from the book is attempting to enter our world through people reading it and becoming part of it.

Our story begins with John Trent (played brilliantly by Sam Neill), a fraud investigator, being hired by a large publishing company who wants him to investigate the disappearance of popular horror writer Sutter Cane (a not subtle play on the name Stephen King) who has apparently runaway with the manuscript for his latest novel. Cane’s work is supposedly so horrifying that it can cause disorientation, memory loss, and paranoia among his readers. Trent reads several of Cane’s books and is able to deduce that Cane has retreated to New Hampshire (again, a not subtle play on the fact that many of Stephen King’s works take place in his home state of Maine). Trent and an employee of the publishing company, Linda, trek out to New Hampshire to find the supposedly fictional town of Hobb’s End where several of Cane’s books take place (again, a not subtle play on the fact that Stephen King has his own fictional geography of Maine and that many of his stories take place in these fictional towns like Castle Rock, Jerusalem’s Lot, and Derry). In the blurring of the real world and the fictional world, they eventually unknowingly pass through a threshold or liminal zone that allows them to actually arrive in this fictional town and interact with these characters from Cane’s books. Trent is of course skeptical and believes the entire thing to be a publicity stunt put on by the publisher. The two locate and pursue Cane who has indeed been hiding out in this town. In doing so they are pulled deeper into this world of Lovecraftian monsters and ‘madness’. I do not want to ruin the ending for those that have not seen it, but it is quite meta and connects back into the opening scene of the film where Trent was shown to be in an asylum.

The one criticism that some people have with In the Mouth of Madness is that it supposedly does not fully deliver on its premise. I understand that criticism and agree to an extent that the film could have gone a little bit further in some areas. However, the film is still satisfying overall, nonetheless. I would also be remiss if I did not say that In the Mouth of Madness was directed by legendary horror director John Carpenter. Carpenter is well known by genre enthusiasts for classic horror films like 1978’s Halloween, 1982’s The Thing, and 1988’s They Live. But non-horror fans will also know him for 1981’s Escape from New York and 1986’s Big Trouble in Little China. In the Mouth of Madness is arguably the last great John Carpenter movie. Whether you love any of his later work or not, I would certainly agree that In the Mouth of Madness is a great horror film that deserves to be ranked alongside his other classics.

Honorable Mention: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

MPAA Rating: R

Regular readers will remember that I included the film Bram Stoker’s Dracula, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, on my best horror films of 1992 list. Coppola gets a producer credit on this film, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, which makes it an official spiritual sequel to or spinoff of that Dracula film. While I do not believe it is ever established whether the two films exist in the same universe, I like to believe that they do.

Regular readers will also remember that I included the Kenneth Branagh directed and acted film Dead Again on my best of 1991 list. While Branagh is generally not known for his horror (or horror adjacent) work, he makes another appearance on my lists as both the director and lead actor here in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Branagh stars as our titular Dr. Victor Frankenstein, and is joined by a strong supporting cast in Robert De Niro as the monster, and Helena Bonham Carter as the love interest, and Ian Holm as his father.

The film is of course an adaptation of the famous novel by author Mary Shelley released back in 1818. There have been so many adaptations of Frankenstein over the years, where like with Dracula the story goes back to the beginnings of the horror genre on film, with 1931’s Frankenstein being a hugely influential and important example. The strengths of this film are, like with 1992’s Dracula, the screenplay (co-written by Frank Darabont), the cinematography, and the fantastic production design overall. This film was actually nominated for the Academy Award for Best Makeup. The acting performances are also quite strong. In all honesty though, and it might be heresy to say it, but I do not love the casting of De Niro as the monster. In some sense, De Niro is always good, but his version of the monster does not mesh well for me with Branagh’s take on Dr. Frankenstein.

Critics of this film will say that it is over the top, and that Branagh does not truly deliver a film as good as that 1992 Dracula film. Again, I do not disagree per se, but also keep in mind how high of a bar that was. While this version is actually perhaps the most accurate version of the Frankenstein story, in terms of its faithfulness to the book, the film overall does not hit the viewer with the immediacy that the 1992 Dracula film did. Having said all that though, this is still a quality adaptation and in fact is still one of the best adaptations ever of the classic Frankenstein story.

Honorable Mention: Interview with the Vampire

MPAA Rating: R

Interview with the Vampire (and yes, it is with “the” vampire, not with “a” vampire) is an adaptation of the novel of the same name from 1976 written by Anne Rice. It was her first book and thus also the first entry in her long series known as The Vampire Chronicles that follows the history of the Lestat character. Sadly, only two of these books have been adapted on screen with this one being the first. In 2002 came Queen of the Damned which was adapted from the novel of the same name from 1988. I cannot speak for the book, but I remember that Queen of the Damned movie being rather terrible. But that is not the case with this first one. Interview with the Vampire is definitely the good one. The more I think about it the more I realize how many good vampire movies there were from the 1990s. We have already seen two on my lists thus far with 1992’s Dracula and 1993’s Cronos, and I can think of at least two other vampire movies from later in the decade that will likely make my annual lists in some manner or another. I probably do not love this movie as much as some people do, like those that would place it as the best horror movie of the year, but I would still place Interview with the Vampire within the top five for best vampire movies of the decade.

The first thing you notice when watching this movie is look at that cast list. Interview with the Vampire has a big name cast including the likes of Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Antonio Banderas, Christian Slater, Stephen Rea, and a young Kirsten Dunst. And honestly, they are all good here. Brad Pitt as Louis and Tom Cruise as Lestat are our main characters, but the others deliver solid supporting performances, with Kirsten Dunst as a fourteen year old child actor being surprisingly great. Now the second thing you notice when watching this movie is that it is probably the most homoerotic big budget Hollywood movie that you have ever seen. And yes, that is not just in this movie, but is present throughout Anne Rice’s series. Vampire movies are known for their gothic romance and intrigue elements, and those themes are certainly present here. The difference is that the romance and intrigue is between the vampires and the vast majority of vampire characters in the story are males.

As for the plot, the film is officially set in the 1990s contemporary period, but given the nature of the interview format, most of the film is a flashback to the late 18th and 19th centuries. This reporter played by Christian Slater is interviewing this man named Louis, played by Brad Pitt, who claims to be a vampire. And Louis proceeds to convey to this reporter the history of his life and in particular his time as a vampire. The events involved include his turning by the vampire Lestat (played by Tom Cruise), his moral anxiety about the nature of his new existence as a vampire and the killing involved, his paternal relationship with the child vampire Claudia (played by Kirsten Dunst), and his travels around the world over the past two centuries and his observations and reflections on life in that time.

Interview with the Vampire was nominated for Best Art Direction and Best Original Score at the Academy Awards. And Kirsten Dunst was nominated for the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress. As I said above, Interview with the Vampire is a well regarded film by fans and critics alike and is easily one of the best vampire movies of the decade.

Honorable Mention: Brainscan

MPAA Rating: R

Brainscan is one of those bonkers ’90s movies that is simultaneously ahead of its time while also being very 1990s. The horror of the film is actually not the Trickster character. Rather, the horror lies in the desensitization of children to violence as well as the social anxiety about how new technologies are disrupting normal and healthy human social interaction.

Edward Furlong (of Terminator 2 fame) stars as teenager Michael, a horror and computer aficionado whose mother is deceased and whose father is frequently away on business trips. Michael lives most of his life tucked away at home on the computer, running the horror movie club at his school, and is also a voyeur or peeping tom about his neighbor teenage girl, Kimberly (played by Amy Hargreaves). Michael and his best friend Kyle read in Fangoria magazine about this new horror computer game called Brainscan that is supposed to give the player the most realistic and horrifying experience possible. Michael is of course skeptical but orders a copy of the game. To his amazement the virtual reality game is everything it was advertised to be, with the first person player experience of being a serial killer and breaking into someone’s house and killing them being as realistic as it could be. However, he is horrified to learn the next day that it was not actually a virtual reality simulation. He did actually kill someone in real life through the game.

There are more twists and turns along the way as Michael must advance through the different levels of the game. But, I do not want to give too much away for those of you that have not seen this one yet. From that though, you get the sense that the horror of the film truly centers on that blurring of reality between the real world and the fictional world, which is an unintentional theme throughout several of the films on this list. The horror of course also exists in that societal anxiety around new technologies (like computers and virtual reality) and how they are disrupting the fabric of society and healthy human socialization. As I said at the beginning, this is a bit of a bonkers movie and is very 1990s, but it manages to generally pull off what it is going for narratively. Overall, Brainscan ends up being a rather effective and satisfying science fiction horror film. And remember kids, you can love horror movies, but you should also get outside and talk to people and have a life.

Honorable Mention: Natural Born Killers

MPAA Rating: R

Calling this one a horror film is probably a bit of a hot take, but hey that is what I do, and I am going to run with it. Given that director Oliver Stone is more known for creating dramas, people often like to classify this one as a crime drama. And I certainly understand that, and to a degree I would not disagree. This is an Oliver Stone film that is based on a script originally written by Quentin Tarantino, which is certainly an interesting parentage. Tonally, this film is not horror per se, but it mostly exists in the space of being a surrealist action crime drama with outlaws on the run.

However, I would still classify this one as horror (in addition to those other classifications) for two reasons. While this is a crime drama about outlaws on the run, these are not just any other outlaws. These are not mere bank robbers or even mobsters. Rather, these are two serial killers out on a road trip murder spree. Now those two characters, named Mickey and Mallory, are played wonderfully by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis, but any film that moves away from regular crime and into serial killer territory also necessarily moves into horror territory. The second reason for considering this a horror film is that there are multiple levels to its horror. This is not a straightforward drama film. Part of the point of Oliver Stone wanting to make this movie in particular was because he was horrified himself at what our media culture had become in the ways that it glorifies and makes celebrities out of murderers and criminals. In this film, the media in general but in particular an Australian reporter played by Robert Downey Jr. is determined to make Mickey and Mallory into celebrities and thus have his show make a ton of money from their horrific deeds. So in that sense, the horror is not just what serial killers do, but also how our capitalist media and pop culture sensationalist society elevates these people into stardom.

While obviously not about the OJ Simpson murder trial itself, the film is often associated with it implicitly given that it was released in theaters when that trial was happening and was being broadcast on television and obsessively covered on a daily basis by the media. While the film was certainly appropriate to its time, I think the film has only grown in relevance (and in the horror of its dark satire) as the years have gone on with big murder trials broadcast on television and covered in the news on an annual basis, and of course with the rise of the true crime genre of both television and podcasts, etc. The industry around making money off criminals/murderers and turning them into celebrities is even larger and more diverse now than it was in 1994.

I would be remiss if I did not observe that Juliette Lewis is apparently becoming a staple on these lists. Regular readers will observe that this is her third appearance on my horror lists, including of course 1991’s Cape Fear and 1993’s Kalifornia. She is of course good in this movie along with her partner in crime, played by Woody Harrelson. But we also get strong supporting performances from really everyone including Tommy Lee Jones as the prison warden, Robert Downey Jr. as the sensationalist reporter, and even Rodney Dangerfield as Mallory’s abusive father. I understand that some people would want to put this film in the ‘tangential’ section rather than on the list proper, but I think we can all agree that Natural Born Killers is essential viewing for 1994.

Tangential Bonus 1: Serial Mom

MPAA Rating: R

Serial Mom is one of those fantastic little movies that I had never heard of until I started doing these lists, and now it is difficult to imagine how I had gone this long without having this movie in my life. This wonderful little film is a comedy through and through, but it is a comedy about a seemingly stereotypical suburban mom that is a serial killer. Writer-director John Waters absolutely knocks this one out of the park. Kathleen Turner is perfectly cast and absolutely effortlessly nails this character performance. We also get memorable supporting performances by Sam Waterston as the husband, as well as Ricki Lake and Matthew Lillard as their children. And oddly enough, on a somewhat similar theme, we also get a more comedic satire on media and pop culture sensationalism of murderers (and making them into celebrities) toward the end of the film when she is on trial for her crimes. I was tempted to put this one on the list proper as a horror comedy, but this film leans too heavily into the comedy side to not be here in the tangential section. I recommend all of the films on these lists, but this one in particular is just a lot of fun.

Tangential Bonus 2: The Crow

MPAA Rating: R

You know, when I started this blog I had no idea that I would end up talking about this one movie as much as I have. Yes, obviously I really like The Crow, but I am still surprised how it has managed to find its way onto so many of these lists. For those of you keeping track at home, this is the third appearance by this movie on this blog. It previously showed up on my best non-Coke or Pepsi superhero movies list (aka non-Marvel or DC), and then of course it showed up on my best superhero movies of the 1990s list. As I have said before, The Crow is an avenging angelic spirit-essence that reanimates the corpse of an unjustly killed person, and empowers them to exact their vengeance upon their killers. Thus, this film sits on the darker and more violent side of the superhero genre. Honestly, this film is even darker and more violent than the Sam Raimi directed Darkman from the 1990 horror list. So obviously check out The Crow if you have not seen it, and once again RIP to Brandon Lee who was accidentally killed while making this film.

Tangential Bonus 3: Stargate

MPAA Rating: PG13

Stargate is a science fiction action movie featuring an ‘ancient alien‘ oriented plot. Kurt Russell and James Spader star as a military officer and an archaeologist respectively. They travel through a large ring-shaped piece of alien technology that was buried in the Egyptian desert to a planet far away in outer space. There they encounter the human residents of that planet and assist them in overthrowing their alien despot, the Egyptian sun god Ra, as our group attempts to return to Earth through the stargate. Again, while this is much more of an action movie, it does feature some great visuals which do lean into horror at times, as well as a different and unique spin on an alien invasion story. While it might not sound like much to say, but Stargate is the best ancient alien movie that we will probably ever get. Despite spawning a massive franchise, especially on television, and despite being a financial success and having a notable director like Roland Emmerich, Stargate is one of these great science fiction films from the 1990s that has sort of been forgotten by popular culture. And that is unfortunate because the story is unique and fascinating, the character performances are good especially by Russell and Spader, and overall, the film is executed well. This is a solid film that people should check out.

Tangential Bonus 4: The Shawshank Redemption

MPAA Rating: R

While The Shawshank Redemption is not a horror film, and is really much more of a prison drama, it is also one of the greatest films of all time and is an adaptation of a Stephen King story. It took the top spot on my best Stephen King movies list. It is difficult to not include the great Stephen King adaptations, even those that are not horror, in these tangential bonus sections.

“The Shawshank Redemption is one of those films that is commonly regarded as one of the best films ever made. Hell, Stephen King has even said in an interview that Shawshank is his favorite film adaptation of his work. It was nominated for seven Academy Awards, though unfortunately it did not win any of them. Just to name a few of the nominations: Morgan Freeman was nominated for Best Actor (and oddly enough he is arguably not even the lead), Frank Darabont was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, and the film was nominated for Best Picture. And yes, I will pile on there in saying that The Shawshank Redemption is probably my favorite film of all time. There are so many things that one could say about how every part of this film is amazing. One of the true strengths that makes the film stand out is that it humanizes prisoners, which is rare in American cinema. The acting is phenomenal. The screenplay, and cinematography, and score, and everything about it is phenomenal. Everything about this movie just works. The Shawshank Redemption is writer and director Frank Darabont’s first foray into Stephen King film adaptations. If you have been following these lists, you will know that I included both of Darabont’s other King adaptations as well (The Green Mile and The Mist). Both of those films are great in their own right, but Shawshank is the pinnacle of King adaptations and one of the true pinnacles of American film. Simply put, Frank Darabont is, and likely will continue to be for a long time, the ultimate King adapter. No one else has had this much success with King’s material. Darabont is so great of an adapter that I would say that The Shawshank Redemption is one of those truly rare cases where the movie is actually better than the book. And I say that as someone who loved the book as well. This is not a situation where someone pulled a good script out of a crap book. The original novella, entitled Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption: Hope Springs Eternal, was published in the Different Seasons collection in 1982. You may remember that collection from earlier on as it was also the home of The Body which was the source material for Stand By Me. However, Darabont surpasses King’s original work because he actually goes into more detail and fleshes the story and the characters out even more than King did. And I will add there that King is famous (or notorious, depending on your view) for devoting pages to character backstory and development. Darabont’s additions simply complement and complete King’s novella in a way that you cannot truly appreciate if you have not read the novella (which I encourage you all to do). Darabont does make a few minor changes, but they are negligible and do not truly alter the core story.”