AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,5/10
19 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Depois de ser mandado para a cadeira elétrica, um assassino em série usa eletricidade para voltar dos mortos e realizar sua vingança contra o jogador de futebol que o entregou à polícia.Depois de ser mandado para a cadeira elétrica, um assassino em série usa eletricidade para voltar dos mortos e realizar sua vingança contra o jogador de futebol que o entregou à polícia.Depois de ser mandado para a cadeira elétrica, um assassino em série usa eletricidade para voltar dos mortos e realizar sua vingança contra o jogador de futebol que o entregou à polícia.
- Direção
- Roteirista
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 indicação no total
Camille Cooper
- Alison Clement
- (as Cami Cooper)
Avaliações em destaque
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
** (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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesAccording to Wes Craven, the film was severely cut for an R-rating. It took around 13 submissions to the MPAA to receive an R instead of an X rating. Some of the scenes that were cut include: Pinker spitting out fingers that he bit off from prison guard, longer and more graphic electrocution of Pinker, and longer scene of possessed coach stabbing his own hand.
- Erros de gravaçãoCamera and sound crews' shadows visible during football game.
- Citações
Jonathan Parker: We can't go killing people just to get Pinker out of their bodies.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosThe music in the end credits is heard ending over the MPAA Rated R screen.
- Versões alternativasWhile uncut in cinemas, on video it was later indexed by the BPjM. As a result, an edited FSK-16 rated version was made for a wide commercial video release in Germany. This one contains over 4 minutes of cuts for violence, either reducing or outright removing the many violent bits, making the movie pretty much unwatchable. Only in 2016 was the indexing lifted, and one year later the uncut version was granted a FSK-16 rating, waiving all cuts from previous cut German releases.
- ConexõesFeatured in Gorgon Video Magazine (1989)
- Trilhas sonorasSword and Stone
Performed by Bonfire
Written by Desmond Child, Paul Stanley and Bruce Kulick
Courtesy of BMG Ariola GmbH/RCA Records
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Shocker?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Shocker: 100.000 Volts de Terror
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 5.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 16.554.699
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 4.510.990
- 29 de out. de 1989
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 16.554.699
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 49 min(109 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente