Watch Shocker For Free

Fantastic!

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I have no idea what Wes was thinking when he decided he wanted to make this movie. He can do so much better than this. The whole concept of the storyline is bland and there's no real twists or turns. There's no scares whatsoever. Like he said on one of his interviews, he tried to create another iconic horror character, like Freddy Krueger. It's a huge failed attempt. I love Wes as a filmmaker and that's why I see his movies. If you're not a movie reviewer, avoid this movie at all cost. The power that he which is going through TV sets is a terrible concept and I feel that if this was labeled as a Sci-Fi and crime film it might've worked a lot better. Sadly, they tried to make this a horror film, for horror, this doesn't work at all. Sorry, it just doesn't work. The special Effects are realistic and that's great, but the wacky acting in this film doesn't help the story at all within the motion picture. All in all, a terrible film and to me, a failure.

Shocker sees horror director Wes Craven attempting (but failing) to replicate the success he enjoyed with A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984), bringing to the screen another supernatural psycho in the form of serial killer Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi), who uses black magic to free his spirit as he is being zapped in the electric chair. Transferring from body to body, Pinker is able to continue his grisly murder spree, AND have a little fun with Jonathan Parker (Peter Berg), the high school football star who was instrumental in Pinker's arrest.Craven not only rips off his own ideas, using dreams as a major plot device, but also mimics the horrible tongue-in-cheek style of the later Elm Street movies, his killer a wisecracking figure unable to be destroyed by normal means. The result is a real stinker of a movie, boasting a lousy central performance from Berg (whose whiny nasal delivery is unbearable), lots of dreadful visual effects, and a plot that makes very little sense, all capped off with a sequence that is easily one of the worst things Craven has ever committed to film (and that's saying something): a battle that takes place inside a television set, with Pinker and Jonathan travelling through several TV shows, the plucky high-schooler eventually using the TV remote to control his enemy. I'm not entirely sure what Craven was aiming for, but the result is embarrassing in the extreme—even worse than BB the robot in Deadly Friend.N.B. I just remembered the moment where Pinker disguises himself as a massage chair, which is as bad as, if not worse than, the TV channel hopping scene.

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.

Wes Craven is a writer director of horror films who was not recognized for his genius until after his genius had already been exploited. "Last House on the Left" in it's original time.... UNHEARD OF!!!! GROUNDBREAKING!!!! "HIlls Have Eyes", SAME THING!!!! Sorry to any snobs out there who are actually bold enough to claim that "Nightmare On Elm Street" is ANYTHING but a perfect horror movie (you just want attention for intelligence that you don't have) "Shocker" for its time, premise, story, and(dare I?), acting... is great! Does it compare in effect to what he had already done up that point.... no. Does that make it a bad horror movie in the year it came out up against late sequels that were running their course... one of which being "Nightmare 5" which had a pen credit to Craven, no. In short... If you like Wes you'll like this... if you like horror of the time... you'll like this... WATCTH IT!!!