The ‘90s often get a bad rap with horror fans. After the numerous successful slashers and creature effects films of the ’80s, the ‘90s offered a different variety of horror fare. Though there were plenty of hits, hidden gems, and misunderstood classics, the ‘90s usually don’t get the kind of love that other decades get when it comes to horror. It’s time to change that.

So many movies are simply victims of bad timing. We can all cite big examples like John Carpenter’s The Thing or Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner when it comes to films that just weren’t tapped into the pop culture zeitgeist of the era. Sometimes, flicks don’t even get a chance at regular distribution because of social or political pressures (ex: The Interview and The Hunt). When we look at the legacy of certain movies, we need to consider what kind of circumstances surrounded their release and how that might have affected their reception.

A great case study for this is 1993’s The Good Son.

The story is essentially a riff on The Bad Seed: a seemingly innocent child is really a sadistic psychopath and nobody believes that they could be such a monster. In The Good Son, our perspective character is Mark (Elijah Wood), a young boy who is grieving over the death of his mother. Mark is sent to live with his aunt and uncle while his father, Jack (David Morse), goes away on business. Mark strikes up a friendship with his cousin, Henry (Macaulay Culkin), and the two boys have fun being rambunctious and letting their wild sides go. But, when Henry starts taking things too far for Mark’s liking, it becomes clear that Henry is a far more dangerous character than we thought.

The Good Son was a success at the box office, but it was critically panned and has only seemed to receive more ire as the years have gone by. Looking back at reviews from the time, it’s clear that critics were not fans of Culkin’s casting and how he’s utilized in the film. This is where the context of the times is crucial to understand. Culkin had become a movie star practically overnight, with Home Alone, My Girl, and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York all releasing in a span of two years. His image as a lovable poster child for American cinema was prolific and powerful. And then he goes and stars in a movie where he’s not only a villain, but he’s a villain with absolutely zero sympathy and is doing things that are shocking and obscene for a child character. It’s not hard to see why repulsion was a common response to The Good Son.

You’d think that time and distance have allowed viewers to better judge The Good Son on its own merits, but I still see a lot of derision and outright mockery of this film. And a lot of that continues to be centered around Culkin’s presence. Revisiting it for the first time in probably twenty years, I found a film that was far better than its reputation would lead you to believe.

Let’s get the big target out of the way: is Macaulay Culkin too distracting or wrong for the role of Henry? Honestly, I don’t think so. A common criticism I’ve read about The Good Son is that Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin should have switched roles, making Macaulay the innocent audience surrogate and Wood the creepy youngster. While I’d certainly watch that version of the film, I think it misunderstands why the casting is spot-on. Henry needs to appear cherubic and innocuous in order for his turn as a monster to work. Casting Culkin at the height of his child star fame was kind of brilliant, and it certainly was a draw for audiences that wanted to see one of America’s sweethearts play a horror antagonist.

And it’s a good showcase for both young actors. Wood and Culkin are incredibly mature for actors at that age, and the movie would fall to pieces if they weren’t able to carry it. Granted, there are certain lines that even adult actors would struggle with delivering in a convincing manner, but it’s very clear that both of these performers had significant talent at a young age and they are more than capable of making their roles work.

What really bums me out about The Good Son’s critical standing is that there isn’t a lot of discussion around what really works in the movie. Namely, director Joseph Ruben and director of photography John Lindley shot one hell of a movie. They had previously worked together on another excellent family horror film, The Stepfather (which is one of the best horror films of the ‘80s), and they bring that same level of polish and elevation to The Good Son. This is a wonderfully chilly film set during the winter, with lavish location shots and a great sense of mood.

Is The Good Son a fantastic film? I wouldn’t go that far. It’s efficient, well-made, and its only outstanding crime seems to be one that’s more the fault of cultural awareness than anything actually present in the movie. If Macaulay Culkin wasn’t playing Henry and it had been some other child actor, I don’t think the film would be discarded in the way it has been. It’s a restrained, almost classic kind of horror movie that’s less focused on being creepy than it is being disturbing. It’s a movie that could use a little more of a modern viewpoint on it.

With films like Orphan and We Need to Talk About Kevin taking the creepy kid sub-genre in exciting and daring new directions, it wouldn’t hurt to give The Good Son another look.