Shocker (1989) User Reviews (108)

No more Mr. Nice Guy!

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 2 September 2012]

Wes Cravens' "Shocker" is often one of the more derided in the directors' career, but in this own reviewers' humble opinion, it still manages to be pretty entertaining, even as it gets awfully silly and keeps wavering between a serious, sombre tone and an insane, over the top one. It doesn't help that it's too obvious that Craven was trying to create another Freddy Krueger in the form of raving maniac Horace Pinker, a savage psychopath played to foaming-at-the-mouth perfection by Mitch Pileggi, eventually to become better known for playing Skinner on 'The X-Files'.

Pinker's on the loose, slaughtering whole families, but opposing him is college football star Jonathan Parker (a remarkably sincere Peter Berg), a nice guy who was raised by a police lieutenant (Michael Murphy). Jonathan and Horace, who are connected in a way that the younger man doesn't anticipate, are also psychically linked, and Jonathan is able to give the cops his name and place of business and before too long the killer is caught and executed.

But the story doesn't end there, as Pinker, in league with Satan, "survives" the electric chair and lives on to overtake various unlucky people and control their bodies, including, in the movies' most memorable sequence, a little girl. How can one hold in their laughter watching this blonde haired moppet curse like a sailor, and try to operate a bulldozer?

Ultimately, the movie is a little too absurd for its own good, but damn if it doesn't have some good atmosphere, show off some amusing ideas, and go overboard on the bloodshed. One particular murder scene is just drenched in the red stuff. One of the methods used to combat Horace is pure corn, involving Jonathans' love for girlfriend Alison (Camille Cooper) and an all-important locket. The best stuff is the wonderfully ridiculous climax in which a rampaging Horace and Jonathan run amok through TV programming (they end up in an episode of 'Leave it to Beaver' where Jonathan pleads for the Beavers' help). This does show some invention, and the special effects are effectively cheesy. (One has to love the "You got it, baby!" moment.)

The cast is extremely game throughout this thing; also popping up are Ted Raimi as an assistant coach, Vincent Guastaferro ("Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI") as a victimized cop, Heather Langenkamp in a tiny, non-speaking cameo as a murder victim, Richard Brooks ('Law and Order') as football player Rhino, Ernie Lively as the warden, rock guitarist Kane Roberts also doing the cameo thing as a road worker, and Cravens' kids Jessica and Jonathan in bits. The heavy metal soundtrack adds to the fun.

Overall, this may not be something this reviewer would necessarily consider "good", but it's still something of a hoot, and may keep some people watching out of sheer disbelief.

Six out of 10.

Plenty of Potential If They Had Toned Down the Cheese

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 28 September 2010]

A young man (Peter Berg) dreams of a killer (Mitch Pileggi)... and the dream is all too real, with his mother and sister left dead in the morning. But that is just the beginning. Once captured and executed, the story is not over but only starts anew!

We start with a shape-shifting story inspired by "The Thing" and Jack Sholder's "The Hidden". Craven even borrowed a shot from "Midnight Run" of all places. Then add in executive producer Shep Gordon (Alice Cooper's agent), which caused the use of Cooper's "No More Mr. Nice Guy", a song that became the film's tagline. Even Cooper's guitarist has a cameo as a construction worker.

Peter Berg makes a strong lead, acting as the poor man's Christian Slater. This was one of his earliest roles, having started in the business as a production assistant. Today (2015), he has become a wildly successful actor, director and producer, most notably on "Friday Night Lights". Mitch Pileggi is also excellent, though a bit campy, and it is nice to see him in a tougher, darker role than FBI Director Skinner.

Mike Mayo says, "Wes Craven creates a fierce satire on television and the way the medium distorts our view of reality." Not sure I agree. If this is a "fierce satire" of anything, it is hidden well. I did not see a critique of television or the media in here at all, and Craven does not make a point of saying this was intended.

Mayo continues, saying, "the film is just another derivative exercise in obvious special effects, borrowing liberally from Craven's own work", including the fact Pinker "becomes a channel-surfing Freddy Krueger who returns to attack his enemies." This is absolutely true... Craven himself, in his audio commentary, notes just how similar "Shocker" and "Elm Street" are in theme.

Both Timothy Leary and Ted Raimi show up, so that's a plus. Even Wes Craven's daughter has a slight cameo. Worth singling out is stuntman Dane Farwell (who worked with Craven since "Serpent and the Rainbow"), who takes a few beatings, including running head first into a pole at full speed. Farwell doubled for Bill Paxton in "Rainbow", and had previously doubled him in "Spaceballs". Indeed, Peter Berg and Bill Paxton are physically similar in some ways.

The special effects had to be done in the last two weeks of post-production, which ate up much of the profits, after the original effects plan fell through. This last minute rush may explain any shortcomings. Craven himself says he can still see outlines that should not be visible. We also have an MPAA-required 13 cuts, which cut down on some of the darker moments (including the electrocution itself.)

If you happen to be one of those who contemplate movies too deeply, you can look for the intentional use of water in the film as a Freudian symbol, saying (among other things) that there is more hidden beyond the surface. Or the "father issues" Craven tried to present in regards to the poor relationship he had with his own father. Or, on the lighter side, you can ponder the legacy of John Tesh -- only a local TV reporter at the time (1989), but quickly catapulted to national stardom... was it this film?

Wes Craven fans will need to see this one, but may want to keep their expectations a little lower. Some parts, such as the possessed girl, are entertaining. But budget issues, special effect limitations, and a cheesy sense of humor make this much more a cult film than one of Craven's best. (For those who like a little horror cheese with their beer, this may actually be a great pick.)

Come on, boy, let's take a ride in my Volts Wagon.

[lastliberal · 5/10 · 8 May 2007]

Now this was a weird idea; a serial killer (Mitch Pileggi, The X-Files) that feeds off electricity.

His nemesis was a high school boy (Peter Berg, Collateral, Cop Land) who hit a goalpost and had dreams about his kills - including his own family and girlfriend (Camille Cooper). Wow!

The body count rose as the killer had to move from body to body. Then comes the final battle, which I imagine would not ever be seen again as they chased through TV show after TV show. It was something to see.

This was more action flick than horror, although it did have it's share of blood and gore.

Shockingly Dumb And Annoying

[Witchfinder-General-666 · 2/10 · 10 March 2008]

Wes Craven used to make good Horror films once. His disturbing debut "The Last House on The Left" of 1972 remains his absolute greatest achievement up to date, and "The Hills Have Eyes" (1977) and "A Nightmare On Elm Street" (1984) are without doubt classics of the Horror genre. After "Nightmare", however, Craven obviously thought that his name alone was enough to make any film a masterpiece, and he subsequently began to direct crap, such as the immensely overrated "Scream" trilogy in the 90s, and films like this "Shocker" of 1989. "Shocker" is such an incredibly stupid thing that it hardly qualifies as a Horror film. It is not quite clear to me if this was actually ever intended to be scary, or if it is just meant to be some kind of (terrible) spoof.

• SPOILERS! -

"Shocker" is about a serial killer (Mitch Pileggi) who, after slaughtering a couple of families, gets sentenced to death. After going to the electric chair, however, the psycho, who used to work as a TV-repairman, uses electricity and TV rays to come back from the dead and carry on with his murders... The film doesn't start out very well, but the beginning is bearable, at least. It gets dumber and dumber with each passing minute, however, and nothing in the film makes any sense. Many elements of the movie have no reason other than to serve as an excuse for how the story goes on. After raising from the dead, the killer can only be stopped by a necklace that suddenly has supernatural powers, for example. The last fifteen minutes are so damn stupid that I would almost call them an insult to the viewer. The idiocy of the film's climax, in which the killer and the hero (Peter Berg) engage in a chase through different TV shows, truly has to be seen to be believed.

The score always seems quite out of place. Alice Cooper's "No More Mr Nice Guy" is a cool song, but I still wouldn't call it very original to play one song over and over again throughout a movie. The performances are also quite terrible. Mitch Pileggi is passable as the villain, but he is anything but scary and seems like a thuggish redneck more than a psychopath. All things considered, there is hardly a thing about "Shocker" that didn't annoy me. A damn shame, since Craven used to be a good director once. Watch his earlier films instead, "Shocker" has almost nothing to be recommended for. Avoid!

Unintentional Comedic Gold

[xfearbefore · 7/10 · 6 April 2009]

I've never actually felt the need to write a review in all my years surfing IMDb, but I felt there really wasn't any review for this movie that gives it the justice it deserves.

If you're a fan of insanely illogical and hilarious B-movies, this my friend's is for you. Fans of 80s crap-laugh-fests like "Night of the Creeps", "Blood Diner" and "Troll 2" will truly love this movie.

Where to begin with all of the unintentional humor in this film? Let's start with the fact that none of the plot makes any coherent sense, whatsoever. Let's just run down some of the things that will leave you scratching your head in confusion and laughter.

1. Why is Peter Berg a Psychic? Did that serve any purpose in the actual plot itself? 2. How exactly does this serial killer manage to massacre over THIRTY families in what appears to be a very small town. Seriously, how the hell do you get away with murdering 30 families in the same town? And why would anyone ever stay in that town? 3. The police in this movie are probably the dumbest I've ever seen in a movie. Upon finding the killer in a house in the beginning of the film, all 8 or so cops storm up the stairs chasing the man as he escapes from the roof. Seriously, no one thought to maybe keep one guy outside the building, ya know, IN CASE HE TRIES TO ESCAPE? Also, why aren't the police following Peter Berg's character this entire movie? Literally everyone he comes into contact with gets murdered by the killer, and these cops don't have time to even check up on the kid once after his entire family and girlfriend have been slaughtered? Worst (or best) of all is the scene in with Peter Berg's character is chasing the killer's soul which is jumping from body to body through a park. Despite the fact that bullet after bullet after bullet is shot, and several dead bodies lay in the middle of a public park, the police are nowhere to be found. (This scene is especially hilarious when Berg begins violently shaking an 8 year old girl who's body the soul has jumped into) 4. How the hell does Mitch Pileggi's character attain his "shocking" powers? The only attempt at an explanation given is just a vague comment that he liked to practice black magic. We're given maybe 20 seconds explanation of this, and then it's never mentioned again.

You get where I'm going with this? Me and my buddy were in stitches this entire movie, whether it be the stereotypically laughable 80s "metal" soundtrack, or the small things like why and how the entire football team has matching black trench coats with their schools initials on them (what school issues black trench coats? The comedy here practically writes itself).

If you're a lover of bad movies, as in "so bad you cry with laughter", then check this out, IMMEDIATELY. Almost on par with Troll 2 as the worst and funniest movie ever.

Very tedious to sit thru the 'television trapped scene'. Awful editing.

[Fella_shibby · 4/10 · 10 April 2020]

I first saw this in the early 90s on a vhs n somehow found it to be entertaining but aft revisiting recently I am truly shocked. The film starts well with a serial killer dozing off everyone who comes in his way but then it became very tedious. The worst is the television trapped scene. The scene where our lead actor jumps into a lake to search for a chain n pendant n voila, without any effort he finds it. As viewers we ain't shown the underwater scene. The soul jumping from one person to another is done creepily n very well in Denzel Washington's Fallen. Generous with 4 cos of the lip biting or sortuva lip pulling scene. Found it funny n not at all scary.

An electrifying mixing of Horror and Sci-Fi!!

[elo-equipamentos · 7/10 · 15 March 2020]

Wes Craven made an outstanding career on those exploitation horror movies, Shocker I never saw until now, surprising me in plenty way, creative plot indeed, interesting and original, fresh concept, an electrifying parody of the science fiction, although totally absurd and inconceivable the movie flow easy, a young football player Jonathan (Peter Berg) hit his heat on a steel bar, since then he got some psychic powers, as seeing his family be slaughtered at his house, he knows how the killer looks like, his step father is a Lt Don Parker (Michael Murphy) try avoid Jonathan a t crime scene, nevertheless Jonathan explains that he watch the massacre, actually the killer Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi) is his real father, he wants to proves that Jonathan is like him, will kill soon or later, even arrested and sent to be executed on electric chair his spirit survives using other bodies to make his revenge, the massive electricity on his body gets him more strong, including entering on television network, unusual and bizarre movie, that baffle us on so unique new approach, forget it the inconsistence and watch it how it was conceived!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / DVD / Rating: 7.25

A shocker indeed

[The_Void · 4/10 · 18 July 2006]

If you're going to release a film called 'Shocker', you're taking a big risk as saying that its rubbish becomes easy, and for Wes Craven; it's a risk that didn't pay off. Craven has had a number of deserving successes before he made this shocker, with films like The Last House on the Left and A Nightmare on Elm Street, but this film represents a huge hole in the man's list of directorial credits. Personally, I don't rate Craven too highly anyway; and that's mostly because of films like this. The director has certainly made a lot more rubbish than he has stuff worth seeing, and it's unfortunate that a career which started off so promisingly ended up making bottom of the barrel stuff. Anyway, the plot is actually rather promising and it follows a similar idea to the one that made A Nightmare on Elm Street such a success. The film features a homicidal repairman who enjoys killing people right up to when he is caught by police. Naturally, he sentenced to death by electric chair; but the authorities didn't count on him making a bargain with Satan, and after a silly sequence involving a TV - our killer is back!

Perhaps the most annoying thing about this film is the running time. For a film with a retarded plot like this, it's unnecessarily long and while Craven does have a few good ideas; there's not nearly enough to fill nigh on two hours. After the stupid scene where the killer electrocutes himself, I honestly didn't think I'd make it all the way to the end; but the film does pick up a little after that with a body swapping sequence that, while derivative of several other films, actually works quite well. That part of the film lasts for about twenty minutes, and once it's over we're back to tedium. The final sequence, which is fitting, is also ridiculous as our two major characters find themselves in a TV. This part of the film features movies such as James Whale's classic Frankenstein, but it's a bit too silly and while the film is tongue in cheek all the way through; it just doesn't work. All this nonsense is topped off by a silly script that neither manages to build characters or provide entertaining dialogue and side-plots such as the one revolving around the ghost of the lead character's girlfriend provide nothing in the way of interest. Overall, I highly recommend skipping this film.

CHEER! - (7 stars out of 10)

[BJG-Reviews · 7/10 · 20 December 2021]

The stage curtains open ...

I was 21 years old when this movie was released in 1989, which is the perfect age to watch it at for the first time. I was naive enough to suspend disbelief and old enough for its gory and violent scenes. Perfect age. "Shocker", directed by Wes Craven, is simply put, a chaotic, full-throttle, horror/action movie - filmed with reckless abandon, heavy metal music, and with the heart of an adolescent. This is one crazy, busy film - and I loved every second of it!

The opening frames has Wes Craven written all over them. The similarities between this movie's opening frames and the original Elm Street's opening frames are remarkable. In fact, the dream sequences and the vibes from Wes Craven's earlier works, scream his presence in this movie. We follow the harrowing events of Jonathan Parker as he tracks down a serial killer named Horace Pinker, with whom he seems to share some sort of telepathic bond to. With everyone around him affected and impacted, Jonathan must be willing to put aside everything he knows is real and enter into Pinker's electrifying, nightmarish world.

This movie is so OUT there, and is so absurd, that one can really only love it for two reasons: sheer entertainment, or sentimental value. For me, it's both. Our villain, Pinker, has a bad knee, therefore, he half-limps and half-drags his left leg wherever he goes. As he jumps from body to body, apparently they inherit his physical properties too, because they all have that same limp. We also witness Pinker making a deal with what looks to be a pagan electricity god, I guess, just before his date with the electric chair - enabling him to jump in and out of electrical appliances as well. See what I mean? Complete chaos.

My favorite scene, and the one that really made it for me, was in the park when Pinker is jumping from body to body and he controls the body of a little girl, and she just turns nasty mean. I loved it. I give this movie a recommend at 7 stars out of 10. It isn't Craven's best work, nowhere near it actually, but what a fun ride! If you haven't seen it yet, then you are in for a shocking experience. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Craven makes a fool of himself here...

[Coventry · 2/10 · 18 September 2003]

SMALL SPOILERS AHEAD

Let me tell you a little secret...Wes Craven isn't the most talented horror director alive. Far from it actually, and this movie is the excellent proof. Craven is nothing but an overrated director who suffers too much from his own ego. He made two great milestones in the 70's which were outstanding ( Last House on The Left and The Hills have Eyes)and also the first Nightmare on Elm Street was more than decent. After that he only made average films and even a few unalloyed suckfests...Like Shocker !! By the way, I am aware that I left out Scream. It's a damn stupid film which doesn't make any sense, poorly acted and directed, filled with dumb plot twists and unfunny jokes and an overload of shameless references to classics. It's about a 'horrible' murderer who prepared himself to the electric chair so when they finally catch him and sentence him to death he's able to return through television and even through lampshades ! He also needs other bodies to crawl into when he wants to murder some more people...That results in some very goofy scenes. In the same year this piece of sh*t was brought out, there was a movie with a similar idea as well. House 3 aka the horror show involved an electric chair, a horrible serial killer and a return through electric impulses. This wasn't a highlight either but I still prefer that one because it didn't take itself so seriously...Also it had Brion James as the psycho and his death-ride was much more fun !

Wes Craven even rips off his own movies here...Coming into contact with the maniac through a dream ??? Didn't Wes do this already ?

Furthermore there are talking TV-sets and stuff...don't ask me why. And tons of other things that don't make sense ( why did the necklace had supernatural powers all of a sudden ). The acting is even worse. The lead character Jonathan is supposed to be a popular football player but he looks more like a dork to me...and above all, he can't act! The semi-metal soundtrack is really annoying and even a headbanger classic by Alice Cooper can't save it. I can point out a few more negative elements but I think you get the idea...Shocker is bad and certainly not recommended.

I love this flick to death - A Wes Craven's underrated classic horror flick!

[ivo-cobra8 · 10/10 · 1 November 2016]

Shocker (1989) is a master of horror Wes Craven's underrated excellent horror flick, that I do believe is a classic and I love it to death! It is my third favorite Wes Craven's horror flick. This movie is a memories on my childhood, I grew up watching this movie as a kid. The same thing that was with the Chinese director John Woo by me, I had no idea who was Wes Craven or that it was directed by him. The only movie I memorized by Wes was Scream, which become my favorite film when I was 15 years old, I watched Scream with my mom and even my mom liked Scream. I found out a year later about this film Shocker, but version I had on VHS was extremely horrible lousy picture quality and awful audio. The subtitles were extreme lousy dubbed so I couldn't watch this film. Now recently I got this film on Blu-ray and I really had a blast watching this horror film!

A Nightmare on Elm Street and New Nightmare are my favorite Wes Craven's horror films that I love to death and Shocker is my third favorite horror film is my number 3 Wes Craven's slasher horror flick, that I love to death! This amazing stylish horror film from the late 80's is about a diabolical mass murderer who harness electricity for unimaginable killing powers. Why I love this film? because Horace Pinker is a bad ass, kick-ass villain! The film simply reminds me on A Nightmare on Elm Street the original flick. Btw I hate horror idiotic icon Michael Myers from Halloween franchise, I hate him and I hate Jason Voorhees the same as Myers, but Horace Pinker could kick both of their assess! I love this film because in any horror film that I remember the main hero of the whole film is a kick ass guy who is likable decent male hero character trough whole film! In every horror film that I remember the main hero is always some stupid girl, but Wes tried something else which it worked.

You have a great horror, likable characters, a lot's of action, a lot of fantasy in it and a lot of fun. This is Peter Berg's best film in his whole career which is an awesome classic! Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) from A Nightmare on Elm Street is my favorite number 1 horror icon heroine but Jonathan Parker is my favorite number 1 horror icon which I love him to death.

I love the music scores from Megadeth and The Dudes of Wrath, I love soundtracks No More Mr. Nice Guy and shocker to death.

My favorite scene is when Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi) posses the body of 9 year old girl and drives an excavator and try's to kill Jonathan which that scene was incredible awesome! Horace posses the body of Lt. Don Parker (Michael Murphy) and hunts down Jonathan (Peter Berg) and shots with a gun on him, missing him and they both fight face off on a tower when they both climbing up and Don Parker kick's him away.

Ghost Alison Clemens (Camille Cooper) kick's Horace's spirit away from Jonathan.

Jonathan face's off Horace him self and fight's him off and finally beat's him in his own game, like Nancy did and he survives.

The cast is very solid in here: Mitch Pileggi gave a solid performance, Peter Berg's best underrated role, Camille Cooper is very underrated and excellent actress in here.

You also have Ted Raimi in here and Heather Langenkamp in a cameo scene as Horace's Victim.

Wes Craven did amazing job as script writer and director you have a solid script and awesome dialogue in the film.

R.I.P. - Wes Craven (1939 - 2015) I really miss you and thank you for all the Freddy movies, thank you for all horror franchise and movies like are: A Nightmare on Elm Street, New Nightmare, Scream, The Serpent and the Rainbow, Shocker and The People Under the Stairs. I love you so much I wish you could done more horror movies I really love them.

Overall: I love Shocker to death and it is my third favorite Wes Craven's horror film! The rating is a 10/10 for me.

Shocker (also known as Wes Craven's Shocker) is a 1989 American horror film written and directed by Wes Craven. It stars Michael Murphy, Peter Berg, and Mitch Pileggi as the evil antagonist Horace Pinker

10/10 Grade: Bad Ass Seal Of Approval Studio: Universal Pictures, Alive Films Starring: Michael Murphy, Peter Berg, Cami Cooper, Mitch Pileggi, Sam Scarber, Richard Brooks, Ted Raimi, Heather Langenkamp, Lindsay Parker, Janne Peters Director: Wes Craven Producers: Warren Chadwick, Wes Craven, Bob Engelman, Peter Foster, Shep Gordon, Barin Kumar, Marianne Maddalena Screenplay: Wes Craven Rated: R Running Time: 1 Hr. 50 Mins. Budget: $5.000.000 Box Office: $16,554,699

Patchwork and Patchouli

[Dr_Coulardeau · 7/10 · 26 May 2009]

Wes Craven is probably one of the best movie makers in his field, in his genre. Horror does not have any kind of secret for him. But this undeniable quality kills the novelty a horror film is supposed to have in order to go beyond plain technical or even semiological excellence. And that is just the point here. We can recognize all the films that Wes Craven has made, and from each of which he has selected a little tidbit here and a small tiny piece there and then he has knitted everything together, with some loose moments here and there for the seams to be visible and people to recognize the borrowings. And he even managed to get some samples from films by other authors, Stephen King for example and his Green Line. But that is just the shortcoming of the film. It is nothing but knitted together borrowings and there is no new element, no new stuff, no new level of horror. It is déjà vu. The fear of television that invades our life, that manipulates our minds, that violates our virginity, all that is not enough to represent a new discourse. Because it is not. I am afraid this genre leads to repetition and Wes Craven take the sane decision Stephen King has taken, even if he took his time to take it, is the decision to retire one day and just stop always doing the same thing. And don't believe you can change styles. Anne Rice tried that but her life of Jesus is not convincing at all. Vampires are her real stuff. Messiahs are not exactly her cup of tea or should I say her glass of wine. In other words I don't think Wes Craven has reached a new level of extreme superb-ness. Just a well-crafted thriller and horror film. Nothing more, entertainment for sure, but nothing to put aside as the masterpiece you must not forget to take when you leave for the desert island to which we are all convicted to go after six, seven or eight decades of life. The Green Mile yes, Scream yes, a couple of others too, but not this one. It is not one of the five unforgettable ones.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID

Shockingly awful.

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 6 February 2017]

Shocker sees horror director Wes Craven attempting (but failing) to replicate the success he enjoyed with A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984), bringing to the screen another supernatural psycho in the form of serial killer Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi), who uses black magic to free his spirit as he is being zapped in the electric chair. Transferring from body to body, Pinker is able to continue his grisly murder spree, AND have a little fun with Jonathan Parker (Peter Berg), the high school football star who was instrumental in Pinker's arrest.

Craven not only rips off his own ideas, using dreams as a major plot device, but also mimics the horrible tongue-in-cheek style of the later Elm Street movies, his killer a wisecracking figure unable to be destroyed by normal means. The result is a real stinker of a movie, boasting a lousy central performance from Berg (whose whiny nasal delivery is unbearable), lots of dreadful visual effects, and a plot that makes very little sense, all capped off with a sequence that is easily one of the worst things Craven has ever committed to film (and that's saying something): a battle that takes place inside a television set, with Pinker and Jonathan travelling through several TV shows, the plucky high-schooler eventually using the TV remote to control his enemy. I'm not entirely sure what Craven was aiming for, but the result is embarrassing in the extreme—even worse than BB the robot in Deadly Friend.

N.B. I just remembered the moment where Pinker disguises himself as a massage chair, which is as bad as, if not worse than, the TV channel hopping scene.

A Mess That Just Doesn't Come Together

[Michael_Elliott · 25 October 2015]

Shocker (1989)

** (out of 4)

Disappointing Wes Craven shocker about college football player Jonathan Parker (Peter Berg) who after a bump on the head witnesses a murder as it is happening. He tells his cop father (Michael Murphy) and before long they're able to capture the serial killer Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi). After dying in the electric chair the killer manages to force his spirit into the bodies of others via electricity.

SHOCKER was meant for the horror legend as an attempt to start up a new series since the Freddy Krueger character had gone into directions that he didn't really like. Sadly for Craven and the viewer the end result is somewhat of a mess. SHOCKER starts off decent enough but it quickly falls apart during it's second half and there are just way too many problems for the film to work.

I think the majority of the blame has to go towards Craven's screenplay. The film starts off as some sort of weird thriller with elements of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The entire thing dealing with Jonathan seeing the killer just didn't work. To make matters worse is that the second half with the spirit jumping is just downright stupid and it never becomes believable to the point where you can get caught up in what's going on. Another problem is that the film clocks in at 109 minutes, which is about twenty minutes to long. There are so many stretches of boring stuff that you can't help but wish Craven had cut it down.

Both Berg and Murphy deliver good performances and their relationship is certainly the best thing about the story and it helps keep you somewhat entertained. Pileggi easily steals the picture as the foul serial killer and it's really too bad the entire film wasn't based around him. Once the spirit jumping happens it takes the actor out of the material and the film flat-lines. SHOCKER features a nice score and some interesting ideas but they just never come together.

Not Craven's Greatest Moment

[TheRedDeath30 · 4/10 · 2 August 2015]

I honestly believe that Wes Craven may be the greatest horror director of all time. It's not necessarily one movie that cements that view for me, but when looking at the career as a whole, I don't think you can match up any other director who has created as many true horror classics as Craven. In any career, though, there are bound to be a few missteps and SHOCKER just might be one of Craven's biggest, in my opinion.

The movie is really just a half-hearted concoction created from bits and pieces of Craven's previous hits, in an obvious attempt to create another franchise. The seams really start showing in this creation, though, as I find that the weaknesses far outweigh any highlights.

The movie centers on a young man, played by Peter Berg. Of course, it is a mite different to see a male lead in one of these films. Almost immediately we're reminded that this is the man who created Freddy as we're already in a dream world. Seems our young hero can "see" a serial killer committing his monstrous crimes. The plot takes an obvious course from there to the hero eventually assisting his cop foster father in bringing in the villain.

We're already about halfway through the runtime when the plot switches altogether. The killer is executed by electric chair, but through some poorly explained "black magic", he becomes some sort of malevolent force, able to pass from body to body to continue his bloody killings until we get to the inevitable final showdown between hero and monster.

The worst flaw, for me, in this movie was the script writing. I'm a big horror fan and, trust me, I get it....these movies are going to have some chinks in the armor. We're not supposed to think too hard, but this movie is a lesson in hackneyed plot design. Every twist and turn in the plot is precipitated by some thrown together coincidence. People and items just happen to be in the right places at the right times, and are connected to just the right people, so that the plot can continue along its' merry way without the writer having to put too much effort into explaining it all. That includes one of the most vital cogs in the whole design, the explanation of how this "transformation" was possible. You don't have to explain too much to me in a horror film, but give me some reason to believe in this monster's existence.

As a Craven film, this plays out a bit like a remix of his greatest hits. It's as if he took all of the ingredients that made his previous movies successful and threw them in a blender. People seemed to like dreams in EM ST, so let's have a hero who sees the killer in dreams. His early films like LAST HOUSE and HILLS HAVE EYES were notoriously nasty slashers, so let's throw in some gruesome murder scenes. He had just done black magic in SERPENT & RAINBOW so let's pepper in some of that too. The list goes on. It started to feel like more effort went into finding success than creating success.

I guess I don't have too much positive to say and that's a shame because Mr. Craven is a genius who has certainly created some of my favorite films ever, but I just wasn't impressed with this one.

Quirky horror re-tread is difficult not to enjoy

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 18 December 2016]

An uneven blend of horror and comedy, this film is definitely entertaining if not exactly good. Directed by Wes Craven, who has had years of experience behind him now, the film seems to have stolen from a number of sources - HOUSE, THE EVIL DEAD, and the director's own A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. However, the influences blend together into a pleasing film which is virtually a remake of NIGHTMARE, but with a different 'monster' and an opportunity for better special effects. The layout of the film is erratic. It starts off as a standard slasher film, before becoming an undead electrified killer on the loose film (shades of HOUSE 3 here) and then a strange weird film which is quite unlike anything I've seen before, where the opponents fight through the television sets. The final part of the film is by far the most original and the best bit.

The acting is pretty much standard here, but all involved acquit themselves nicely with their roles and there are some interesting names to look out for. The main hero, played by Peter Berg (who reminds me of a young Bill Paxton) is pretty much adequate in his role, and is not given much to do except fight a lot and provide a character for the rest of the film to centre around. Interestingly the actor has now gone on to directing, namely VERY BAD THINGS and BATTLESHIP. However, the role of Horace Pinker was given to a then relatively unknown actor, Mitch Pileggi, who is better known these days as Assistant Director Walker Skinner from THE X-FILES! It was a big surprise to see good old Skinner ripping off people's fingers and generally being an all round bad guy, and it makes for entertaining viewing. In fact Pileggi's wild overacting makes the film worth watching, he's hilarious in his role.

Added to this is a cameo from NIGHTMARE regular Heather Lagenkamp as a victim (what else?) and Ted Raimi as of Parker's friends. Raimi goes his usual way, getting killed in a most bloody fashion! Horace Pinker is pretty much a standard maniac bloke, stabbing people with a big knife, but halfway through the film he also starts spewing a ton of Freddy Krueger-inspired wisecracks, such as biting off a man's fingers and shouting "finger licking good!". As these lines are delivered by Pilegge with gusto I couldn't help laughing. The film also has some excellent special effects, especially when Pinker runs around in a fuzzy, electric-type form, and these are well worth watching for. The film is a derivative affair, but it's handled with pace, and there is a lot of action in it (just watch for the extended fight scene at the end, where the pair practice wrestling moves on each other!) and if you're in the right goofy mood then you'll probably enjoy it like I did. It's quite difficult not to enjoy really.

A mixed bag.

[gridoon · 5/10 · 7 September 2000]

"Shocker" is mostly a mixed bag. The story has almost no development beyond the initial ideas, turning the film into an endless series of repetitive chases, and gets increasingly silly as it moves along. There are also too many action scenes which lack credibility to a point where that can't be forgiven (is Berg protected from bullets fired at him by an invisible shield?). However, there is also a particularly memorable sequence with the villain and the hero entering another dimension and fighting each other while jumping in and out of various TV shows. And Wes Craven's direction has enough energy to keep the film generally painless. (**)

Morphing can be dangerous

[djderka · 7/10 · 29 February 2012]

I found this gem on late night cable, maybe one of the HBO's or thisTV (out of Indianapolis), and I was nicely surprised.

I was going to listen to it and work on my computer in the other room, but couldn't leave the couch, because it is very visual and astute. The killer uses "energy" from electricity and television, a wry comment of society.

Wes strides the very delicate line of humor/horror and he does it very well. Films seem to be either SCARY MOVIE (spoof) or SCREAM, (horror). But to have you scared, and then to inject humor is hard. Here you are afraid of the serial killer morphing around, than laughing when he morphs into a little dangerous girl with a protective mom. It kind of reminded me of Night of the Creeps, where slimy worms, keep transferring to other bodies, including a very hot blonde.

You all know the plot by now, so check out this gem, especially the end when Wes takes dead aim at media images.

I am anxious to get the uncut version so see why he had to submit it 13 times to the "approval board" to get a release rating.

I'm not sure what to think

[Bub_the_zombie · 5/10 · 6 December 2007]

This was a childhood favorite of mine and all the pals in the early years. Shocker is quiet an enigma. I'm not real sure as to what Craven was trying to pull off. Not only was Shocker a strange film, The People Under The Stairs that came out a year or two after was also a strange film.

As for 'Shocker' - I can only go as far as to say that there were nays and yays. First and foremost, all the supernatural elements of 'Shocker' may turn a few heads and leave some wanting to turn it off. Some people like the supernatural element going on with this film. Personally, I lean towards the former. If this flick was made into a balls out slasher/serial killer film which only used the main character's psychic ability instead of going to the extremes of allowing the main characters (killer/Hero) to jump inside televisions, using electricity as a source of supernatural power, it would have fared better, and been one of the great ones.

Even aside from all this nonsense, 'Shocker' still has it's moments. It has a very dreary and bleak atmosphere that somehow sucks you in. It's almost the same atmosphere emitted from his 1984 venture, 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'. There's this surrealistic feeling throughout the entire film, and you're not quiet sure what's gonna happen next.

There's a few comedic touches in the film that come from nowhere, but they are quiet welcomed in what otherwise is a very depressing feature.

In all honesty, 'Shocker' is a laughable attempt by Wes Craven. As I mentioned, the film has its moments, but the sheer absurdity of the circumstances lures one away from giving it a chance. Understandable.

Good acting, tho. A good performance by our male lead. Also, a great performance from our deranged psychopath - Who uses television and electricity as a catalyst to possess other people to do his dirty work. There's a slight hint of some occultisms when the killer (right before he's to be executed) has hooked boosting cables to his hands and attached them to a live television set. I guess he was recharging or something. Plus, I have no idea how he obtained boosting cables in jail. Maybe he put them in his lower body cavity? Anyway, if you're in the mood that allows you to throw all sense out the window, it might be an OK time waster. I'd almost go as far as to say that only horror fans would even watch 'Shocker' more than once. Good things, but mostly stupid things...not necessarily bad things, but things that should have been used for another ANOES sequel.

Wes Craven's "Shlocker" or Two in the Pinker, One in the...well,you know...

[Minus_The_Beer · 6/10 · 19 July 2011]

To say Wes Craven has made his share of terrible films is an understatement; in fact, one could say that for every "Nightmare on Elm Street" there is a "Hills Have Eyes 2" and for every "Scream" there is a "Cursed." But like most of his late '80s/early '90s output, "Shocker" is a film that slips under the radar. It is neither bad nor good, neither offensive nor effective. It's just a crazy, mixed-up little film amidst a mid-career crisis.

Mitch Pileggi stars as Horace Pinker, a TV-repairman turned mass murderer with a bad limp. Business is fine and good for Pinker until local high school jock Jonathan Parker (played by Peter Berg) hits his head a little too hard and starts seeing visions of the bad guy doing his dirty deeds. With the kid on his trail, it's not long until Pinker is riding the lightning; however, he quickly proves that you just can't keep a good serial killer down and starts hopping bodies in the afterlife whilst continuing to blaze his trail of carnage.

It's quite obvious from the get-go that Craven was trying to ride the slasher wave enjoyed partly by his own Freddy Krueger. Not only is the film similar stylistically and thematically to its big brother, it also borrows a few exclusive traits, namely the one-liners and dreamscapes. Thankfully Pileggi is up to the task of being a ruthless character who enjoys his share of dirty work, and for the first half of the movie we are treated to a truly frightening and seemingly unstoppable presence. It's a shame then that the movie peters out in the second half, making way for ridiculous scenarios and inane plot-twists, culminating in a "so bad it's good" chase scene through TV channels that feels like it belongs in a different film altogether. It's an often confusing film and a mixed bag for sure. In fact, one can't help but feel the movie is too scripts crammed into one. The first half is a nice, suspenseful slasher flick, while the second feels like its fantastical sequel that takes things a bit too far. Perhaps Craven had a premonition regarding the film's box office take and figured it best to get it all wrapped up in one film.

There's a bit of social commentary and satire running throughout the film, but sadly it's lost amongst the mean-spirited violence and the constant throbbing of its heavy metal soundtrack. It's ironic then that these distractions are the film's strengths. Once you turn off your brain and stop trying to analyze the inanity of "Shocker," it can be enjoyed as the schlocky shocker it truly is.

Cheesy 80s Horror with a great Soundtrack.

[rochfordsimon · 5/10 · 19 April 2020]

I loved this as a teenager. But present day it doesn't hold up. Still though, check it out. The tunes are brilliant flashback hits.

One of Craven's Most Wanted

[domino1003 · 8/10 · 20 December 2003]

======POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!=====

During the 80's, Wes Craven put out a couple of films that were either a hit (A Nightmare on Elm Street and Swamp Thing)or a miss (The Serpent And The Rainbow and Invitation To Hell), and some that fall in between (Deadly Friend and Deadly Blessing). "Shocker" falls into this area. The premise is pretty good: Horace Pinker (Pileggi)is an EXTREMELY vicious serial killer that has been caught by Jonathan Parker(Berg), who has a strange kind of link to Pinker, and whose family and girlfriend (Cooper)were killed by Pinker. Pinker is executed by electric chair, and that is where the story really comes to life. Seems that Pinker ends up with the ability to jump into bodies (Sort of reminds you of the movie, "The Hidden."), and is after Jonathan.

Many things are not quite explained, such as Jonathan's psychic ability, and many things are not explored, such as what is behind Pinker's link to Jonathan and why he turned killer(They did for Freddy Krueger!). The film is not really that scary(Not by today's standards, anyway), although it has it's moments. Still worth a look if you want to look at 80's horror or are a Craven fan. Too bad they never made a sequel, although if they did, would Pileggi played Skinner on "The X Files?" I guess we'll never know!

Fun time

[shawnmikedryer · 7/10 · 13 August 2021]

I loved this very different slasher, i also loved the fact the movie could have ended early if he just grabbed the television remote, straight 80's cheese and i'm all for it!

Okay!

[akshatmahajan · 4/10 · 31 March 2023]

The movie starts with a promising note where a good amount of suspense is tried to be built but after some time, the movie starts losing the track. The story was good for it's time but it's not entertaining for today's time. It was quite boring. The direction felt little bit weak as the director fails to keep your attention to the movie till the end. At one time, you will be thinking when will the movie end? The performances by the cast members were also okay, you can't connect with them.

Overall, it was an okay movie for me which failed to impress me even if I take into consideration that it was a silly slasher movie.