Shocker

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.)

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.

Shocker is one of my favorite serial killer movies. At first glance it might look like a standard hack and slash movie though it has some of those elements, it isn't. There is some originality to this movie and the characters aren't your run of the mill dumb high school students. Oh, they're in high school, they're just not dumb. The "Shocker" played well by Mitch Pileggi of X-Files fame is a lot better than Freddie Kreuger or Jason Vorhees. He has a reason for killing that I won't give away. Not all of the students are killed if you can believe it and the ones that make it deserve to. There is a very good scene involving the killer and hero as they fight across multiple TV channels that I've never seen done before this movie. There is comedy in this movie but not much. It is not a "scary" horror movie. It is more of an action move that is done well. Catch it or rent it if you can.

Rayvyn

This is better than expected. Wes Craven tries to create another boogeyman in the character of Horace Pinker. Pinker is a serial killer who studies voodoo and kills entire families in their sleep. A young college football player named Jon (Peter Berg) develops a psychic link with Pinker. Jon begins an attempt to help the police catch the crazed killer. The first half of the film is realistic and intense, but the second half is based in the supernatural. Pinker gets the electric chair but becomes an evil entity that can transfer from body to body (mush like "Fallen" with Denzel Washington) and move through electricity. Once again Jon must use his link to stop the killer. Or is the killer to powerful to be stopped? There is some surprising gore and a pretty nifty plot twist. It's fun to watch a young Peter Berg in an earlier role but the film tend to drag a little. This film came near the end of the slasher craze and Craven was trying to cash in on it one more time. Craven was trying to make a point about televisions and the media, it was evident in the film. Overall, it was a solid and better than average slasher flick with a supernatural killer.

Wes Craven certainly had an interesting career in the 80s. A Nightmare on Elm Street solidified the man as a master of horror. But the series went in directions he didn't want it to, so he left it. Sadly his other 80s films were usually pretty messy, and were often subjected to studio meddling. With Shocker, not only was Craven given full control, but he had the chance to outdo the now legendary Freddy Kruger...

...whoops!

The plot of Shocker is fairly similar to Renny Harlin's Prison and Jim Isaacs' House 3. A killer is put to the chair, thanks to a teenager with a psychic connection to him. A deal with the devil and over 1000 volts later, the killer is back in the form of pure electricity. Now he is after the kid responsible for his execution. No more Mr Niceguy!

Its a fun idea for sure, and it is present with its tongue firmly in its cheek. The characters and their relationships are pretty good. The actors all do what they need to to make the material work. Peter Berg makes for a very likable hero. Mitch Pileggi steals the show as the delightfully vile killer Horace Pinker, one who genuinely 'might' have rivalled Freddy if given the chance. And the soundtrack to this rocks!

Unfortunately what let's this film down is how disjointed it is. It feels like 3 films in one. The first half of it is pretty solid, classic Craven through and through. The horror and humour are perfectly balanced and the atmosphere is great. Once Pinker is killed and comes back, we go even sillier. This quarter of the film isn't as good, but is great for a laugh. Not really what you want from a horror film, but fun is fun.

It is the films ending, it's final quarter, that flushes it down the toilet. Reality and atmosphere are completely abandoned. The film becomes an unfunny cartoon (Pileggis performance not included). This is not helped by the truly terrible special effects. I don't know why, even as a concept, Craven thought that this was a good way to end the film.

In the end I do like Shocker, though it was a close call. The first half, and even the little time after it, are too good and fun for me to write it off. The same goes for the acting, music and overall directing of the film. It's such a shame about that ending. So, Elm Street it is not (don't make me laugh, though it is better than some if the sequels). But a bit of fun, Shocker is.