Home > Horror >

Shocker

AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

Shocker (1989)

October. 27,1989
|
5.5
|
R
| Horror Thriller
AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

About to be electrocuted for a catalog of heinous crimes, the unrepentant Horace Pinker transforms into a terrifying energy source. Only young athlete Jonathan Parker, with an uncanny connection to him through bizarre dreams, can fight the powerful demon.

...

Watch Trailer

Free Trial Channels

AD
Show More

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

BroadcastChic
1989/10/27

Excellent, a Must See

More
Comwayon
1989/10/28

A Disappointing Continuation

More
Tyreece Hulme
1989/10/29

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

More
Stephanie
1989/10/30

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

More
Leofwine_draca
1989/10/31

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.

More
GL84
1989/11/01

Responsible for a ending a mass murderer's rampage, a teen finds himself and his friends the target of the killer's wrath as he returns from the grave to seek revenge and into a final showdown to end his killing spree.This turned out to be quite an enjoyable and somewhat entertaining entry. One of the better features is the manner in which hes eventually caught in the beginning as the backdrop of the reign of terror and his rampage through the city makes for a pretty effective start to this. That makes the early scenes line the police search at the repair-ship or the encounters among the family's is all rather fun and chilling as they all are built off that early storyline premise. That also works with the later scenes of him now being confronted directly and trying to outwit the killer through the neighborhood which is continued later on when the body-hopping part of the story kicks in. these are just as fun with the park chases being a lot more enjoyable and really fives this one quite a punch in the middle segments. These are enough to make for a rather enthralling time in the finale which is the film's crazies set of circumstances where they begin fighting through the different TV programs and movies which are so much fun and highly entertaining to see them in such classic moments and footage which just adds to the whole appeal of this one. As well, the whole sequence for the prison execution is incredibly fun with the actual execution and escape which makes for a wholly thrilling sequence that has plenty to like about it. These do manage to help overcome the few flaws present, which are enough to hold this down somewhat. The biggest problem here is the rather lame body-hopping storyline which is never explained or developed beyond just the limp which makes all of this poorly developed and quite haphazard. That feeling also ties into the special effects and fantasy part of the storyline as both of these are equally underwhelming since they tie into each other, the fantasy element driven along by the special effects to show the ghosts battling each other and them fighting through the TV shows. It looks back in execution and seems stupid in concept. The last problem here is the rather neutered gore on display, which is very noticeable since the kill count isn't very impressive and is all mostly found after-the-fact without really showing it on-camera. These do hurt it somewhat, but there's more than enough to knock this down somewhat.Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and Brief Nudity.

More
Scott LeBrun
1989/11/02

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.

More
gavin6942
1989/11/03

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.)

More