Sotto shock

This Wes Craven vehicle is heavy on the cheese, has some truly awful effects-Craven admitted as much and unintentional comedy (a magical ritual where the Daemon sounds like a Burger King advert?). On the plus side the story is quite good and the X files Mitch Pileggi really commits to the role of deranged serial killer- hamming it up beautifully. Worth a watch, especially if B movies are your cup of tea.

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.

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).

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.

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.)