90s Horror Movies With Awful Reviews That Are Actually Worth Watching

Ah, the 1990s. Perhaps the peak of the moviegoing experience. Theaters consistently showed classics such as the special effects marvel "Jurassic Park," "The Shawshank Redemption," "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," "Pulp Fiction," "Fargo," and "Titanic." The decade also featured an abundance of outstanding horror films like "The Sixth Sense," "Scream," "Misery," and "Interview with the Vampire," all boasting big-name stars and top-tier directors.

However, playing at the opposite end of the cineplex were thrillers you may have never heard about or skipped simply due to bad reviews or scathing word of mouth. Some of Hollywood's top talent attached themselves to such projects, thwarted by ornery critics or moviegoers seeking higher-end entertainment. That's a shame. 

While there are undoubtedly plenty of terrible horror films from the 90s, the decade was also ripe with lower-tier entries that have aged surprisingly well. Many don't reset the bar established by esteemed pictures like "The Silence of the Lambs," which proved less is more, or "Se7en," which took away David Fincher from directing "Blade," but each is worth checking out, despite what the score on Rotten Tomatoes says. Which 90s horror films are better than their reviews might indicate? Well, you're about to find out.

"Tales From the Crypt" remains a lost relic of the 1990s, a bizarre, often terrifying collection of R-rated stories hosted by a wisecracking skeleton called the CryptKeeper. After a remarkably successful run on HBO (which was once going to be rebooted by M. Night Shyamalan), the franchise headed to the big screen in search of even more success. Unfortunately, the ambitious venture led only to 1995's "Demon Knight" and 1996's "Bordello of Blood." Each flopped at the box office after earning scathing reviews from critics.

"Bordello," in particular, was a surprising dud considering the talent on both sides of the camera. "Back to the Future" filmmakig team Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis concocted the story about a bordello full of vampires, while popular "Saturday Night Live" alum Dennis Miller starred alongside Erika Eleniak, Angie Everhart, Chris Sarandon, and Corey Feldman. What could go wrong? Miller apparently hated the script and decided to improvise much of his dialogue, leading to production issues and a tonally inconsistent product that audiences and critics disregarded.

Bollocks! "Bordello of Blood" offers good campy fun. Miller's on-brand performance remains the best part — "I'm not going to tell you those aren't the Breasts of the Century, but I'm not digging the owner, so why don't you put those away; you're just not my type!" 

"From Dusk Till Dawn" tackled similar themes more effectively earlier in the same year. However, "Bordello" is more enjoyable than one might expect and far better than its putrid Rotten Tomatoes score suggests.

Nearly 30 years later, I can still recall listening to critics slam "Mary Reilly" as a stale horror drama that — gasp! — doesn't allow Julia Roberts to flash the dazzling smile that appeared in almost all of her movies. At this point in her career, the superstar was venturing into uncharted territory and flexing her acting muscles in more complex roles. While "Mary Reilly" isn't nearly as captivating as we'd like, a handsome cast, solid production design, and Stephen Frears' assured direction make this unique take on the classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story worth a look.

The story ostensibly tells the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (both played by John Malkovich), albeit from the perspective of the good doctor's maid. As such, we get a semi-gothic love story that admittedly never settles in an appropriate direction. Instead, "Mary Reilly" gets bogged down with far too many ideas shoved into Christopher Hampton's screenplay, leading to several critics, including the San Francisco Chronicle's Peter Stack, describing the picture as "glum," "dour," and "stuffy."

I won't venture to call "Mary Reilly" an under-appreciated gem, but it's far from the dull drama many label it as. Frears' drama is fascinating and anchored by one of Roberts' best non-comedic performances. Perhaps the striking contrast between the star's previous work in plucky romantic comedies was too great for general audiences. No matter. I appreciate the ambition and hope more people discover this curious tale in the years ahead. 

I recall seeing "The Bone Collector" with my dad when it hit theaters in 1999. After watching the thriller directed by Phillip Noyce, we agreed that it was formulaic but still enjoyable. The outstanding performances of Denzel Washington and Angelina Jolie were the highlight of the movie, and it actually ranks decently among their best movies.

Years later, I was shocked that only 28% of critics gave the film a positive review. What? Films hovering around that number are damn near unwatchable. "The Bone Collector" may not transcend the genre, but Noyce and Co. deliver where it counts. Also, where else are you going to see Washington strapped to a hospital bed for two hours? Lincoln Rhyme remains one of the talented actor's most challenging roles, and he naturally shines despite playing a person with quadriplegia unable to move any of his extremities.

Jolie, likewise, displays a natural charisma in an early winning performance that allows her to lean on the same physicality and emotional vulnerability that would define her career. Together, the pair make a remarkable team tasked with finding a violent serial killer. Following the usual pattern seen in films of this nature, the journey proves far more engaging than the ultimate resolution. Still, "The Bone Collector" offers an enjoyable ride worth experiencing.

A majority of Stephen King's stories (including those that have been turned into movies) follow a similar pattern. An inexplicable evil throws a quiet Maine town into chaos and causes the locals to lose their minds. Religion often plays a key role, with many characters questioning their beliefs, all the while committing acts of violence they previously thought impossible. See "The Mist," "Storm of the Century," "IT," and "The Stand."

That's not a knock against the acclaimed writer. I rather enjoy his works, regardless of their flaws. However, I find it hilarious that critics blast efforts like "Needful Things" while applauding other King pictures for doing the same thing. 

Granted, director Fraser C. Heston is a far cry from Frank Darabont. As Roger Ebert noted in his review, his handling of the material is a bit one note. "Needful Things" isn't terrifying, but it does present a unique examination of the human condition via a story about a small Maine town that goes to war with itself after Satan himself arrives and pits everyone against each other. We are, by design, selfish creatures all pining for material objects. A slight nudge is all it requires to succumb to our most negative tendencies.

In other words, this is classic Stephen King, warts and all. Somehow, it sits on Rotten Tomatoes with a meager 32%. Give me a break! If you like other King adaptations, there's no reason "Needful Things" won't fulfill expectations. 

"Deep Rising" marked my first foray into the manic mind of director Stephen Sommers one year before he delighted audiences with the good, old-fashioned, dumb fun of "The Mummy" starring Brendan Fraser. While ultimately a thriller, "Deep Rising" contains the same sense of jubilant fun as Sommers' monster epic and co-stars Kevin J. O'Connor to boot.

Starring Treat Williams, Famke Janssen, Anthony Heald, and Wes Studi, this gory "Alien" knockoff leans hard on its B-movie trappings and packs as many one-liners and set pieces into its two-hour runtime as humanly possible. Performances are mixed, with Williams notably struggling as an action hero, yet that's part of the charm. "Deep Rising" is delirious fun, albeit with a darker tone than Sommers' later works.

Here, he blends elements of sci-fi horror with the disaster epic, namely "Titanic" and "The Poseidon Adventure," and a few aspects of "Jaws." It plays out like a half-cocked compilation of superior films, but that doesn't make it any less enjoyable. Plus, take a gander at those very 90s special effects! Sommers made goofy action movies before goofy action movies were cool. Tip of the hat, sir.

Another John Carpenter vehicle that sadly gets frowned upon, "Vampires," remains a delightfully campy, gory B-movie treat for fans of the iconic director's work. Dismissed as "a suspense-free snark-fest," Carpenter's "Vampires" sees James Woods' Snake Plissken-esque hunter, Jack Crow, battling an evil demon known as Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) in New Mexico. A series of violent confrontations ensues as Jack and a ragtag group of warriors led by Daniel Baldwin and Sheryl Lee attempt to stop this ancient evil from taking over the world.

"Vampires" may not be among the filmmaker's best movies, but it features Carpenter's trademark directorial flourishes, right down to the odd pacing and clunky dialogue. I find it as good as most of his works. Critics thought otherwise. Roger Ebert described the film as "one gory showdown after the another," while CNN's Paul Tatara came right out and said it "stinks."

Nonsense. Carpenter knows his audience well and gives them everything they could want. Action, violence, horror, suspense, and humor are all stuffed into a low-budget production that relies more on atmosphere and stylized action than state-of-the-art special effects. Carpenter doesn't hold back, relying on everything from old-school vampire lore to psychic superpowers to stitch his plot together, and it works like a charm.

I enjoyed "Vampires" when I first saw it in theaters in 1998, and subsequent viewings only reinforced my appreciation. They honestly don't make 'em like this anymore.

Finally, Joel Schumacher's psychological thriller "Flatliners" is another early '90s romp that deserves more recognition. At the time of its release, critics were impressed by the handsome cast — Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, and Oliver Platt — Schumacher's visuals and the film's overall concept, but found the production too timid and safe. "Except for the performances by Roberts and Bacon, which occasionally redeem it, 'Flatliners' is exasperating, a compelling concept unfulfilled," wrote Philadelphia Inquirer's Carrie Rickey.

With all due respect to Rickey, I found "Flatliners" rather engrossing as a morality tale with shades of edge-of-your-seat horror. Sure, portions of the picture feel episodic. Each episode offers unique rewards and propels the plot forward like a good book.

For those unaware, the story follows a group of medical students on their quest to take a peek at the other side of the veil. To accomplish this, they "flatline" for a minute and then return to the living to recount their experience. Naturally, their visions come with unexpected consequences that push them to the brink as they deal with dark moments from their past.

Schumacher attacks audiences from all directions as he did with "The Lost Boys" a few years prior, despite a reduced budget. "Flatliners" is silly but also scary, fascinating, and fun to watch. It holds your attention, and while it does fumble its concept, the ambition alone should be enough to propel it beyond its middling 50% Rotten Tomatoes score.