ThiefHott Too much of everything

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

TheRedDeath30 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.

gretz-569-323863 Wes Craven is one of my favorite directors. the plot of "Nightmare on Elm Street" was brilliant, and decades later, "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" was just as brilliant, IMHO. I even love "Cursed." So I really wanted to like "Shocker." but that's only possible if you ignore some truly major inanities.For instance: from the beginning, it's obvious that Jonathan has information about the killer and can help find and capture him. But Jon's cop father refuses to believe him, and keeps telling him to "go home, this is MY job." Why? Or the scene where Jonathan dreams himself into the next murder, with one of his football buddies to wake him just in time (for-- what?). How does he know the murderer's going to strike right then? In fact, Jonathan's psychic abilities overall are hit and miss: he dreams some of the murders, but he's happily playing football while his girlfriend is being slaughtered. Why didn't he feel that one coming? And when Jonathan searches for the necklace that somehow (it's never explained how) will keep him safe...I just had to laugh. Seriously? He's going to dive to the bottom of a lake, AT NIGHT, and find that tiny necklace? And speaking of that, why is he loving ghost-Alison half the time, but scared witless of her the other half?It's not all silliness, though. There are some things to recommend this movie. It's definitely gory, for those of you who like that. There is some humor, and the Zelig-like trip through the TV programs was quite interesting. And there are some nice scenes of autumn in the suburbs: the leaves swirling in the wind, the witchy little kids running across the street (again, unexplained), the moon through the trees...And anyway, a bad Wes Craven horror movie is still better than a good non-Wes Craven horror movie.

gwnightscream Mitch Pillegi, Peter Perg and Michael Murphy star in Wes Craven's 1989 horror film. A teen tries to stop a killer TV repairman who becomes electrical. Jonathan Parker (Berg) is a football playing teen whose family is murdered by a psychotic TV repairman, Horace Pinker (Pileggi). Jonathan has the ability to see where he strikes and after his girlfriend, Allison (Cami Cooper) is the next victim, he stops at nothing to find Pinker. Pinker is then captured by Jonathan's adopted father & police lieutenant, Donald (Murphy). Once he's executed, Pinker becomes an electrical force that's able to channel through people making them kill. Jonathan learns what happens and tries to stop the ghastly killer once and for all. I've always enjoyed this film and Mitch is great in it. I recommend this good 80's horror flick.

lost-in-limbo Wes Craven's "Shocker" doesn't have much of a reputation, but I didn't mind it although I thought it just got too silly as it went along almost becoming a joke upon itself. However it does hark back to the surrealistic touches of Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street", as Craven recycles certain ideas (like the suburbia setting) and adds variations with no real narrative stringing them together. But with that in mind, I found it to be an mildly rousing, if unevenly confounded horror comedy with Craven's vivid direction (with characteristically free-flowing cinematography) and an amusing animated performance by Mitch Pileggi as a family serial killer who manages to survive the electric chair by body hopping to continue his vicious murder spree while also seeking vengeance against the teenager (a deadpan Peter Berg) that put him in the chair. I actually prefer it, before its gimmicky electricity angle kicks in and then it drags on for far too long. The story kind of reminded me of the similar themed "The Horror Show" (1989), but that one was much more serious. "Shocker" can be dark in spots (and surprisingly violent with its splatter), but its soften by its self-knowing dialogues (the killer's smart arse remarks), daft actions and goofy eccentricity. Some scenes are so ridiculous like something out of a cartoon, which can be its charm or Achilles heal. The special effects are clean and direct, while the score has a constant anxious drill to the cues. Performances are adequate with Michael Murphy showing up and there are some small parts for Ted Raimi and Heather Langenkamp. More so cheesy than electrifying, but unassuming entertainment nonetheless.