Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

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

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

I'm not the type of person who reviews movies on technical aspects. I do it based on entertainment. I LOVE Shocker. Its entertaining, fun with a great villain(Mitch Pilegi of X Files fame as the demonic TV repair man Horace Pinker) an incredibly likable hero(director Peter Berg as Jonathan Sparker) and directed by the great Wes Craven. Linker is a television repair man who through the use of black magic comes back from beyond the grave after a date with the electric chair. Now a ball of electric energy Horace can jump from not only person to person but television set to television set. Only young Jonathan and the ghost of his dead love and the heart necklace he bought her can stop the murderous electrical demon. Energetic, fun and at times very dark shocker is a great thrill ride from Wes Craven with a killer soundtrack. Ignore all the negativity and give it a try. Maybe you'll like it. He's nationwide now. No More Mr. Nice Guy.

To say Wes Craven has made his share of terrible films is an understatement; in fact, one could say that for every "Nightmare on Elm Street" there is a "Hills Have Eyes 2" and for every "Scream" there is a "Cursed." But like most of his late '80s/early '90s output, "Shocker" is a film that slips under the radar. It is neither bad nor good, neither offensive nor effective. It's just a crazy, mixed-up little film amidst a mid-career crisis.Mitch Pileggi stars as Horace Pinker, a TV-repairman turned mass murderer with a bad limp. Business is fine and good for Pinker until local high school jock Jonathan Parker (played by Peter Berg) hits his head a little too hard and starts seeing visions of the bad guy doing his dirty deeds. With the kid on his trail, it's not long until Pinker is riding the lightning; however, he quickly proves that you just can't keep a good serial killer down and starts hopping bodies in the afterlife whilst continuing to blaze his trail of carnage.It's quite obvious from the get-go that Craven was trying to ride the slasher wave enjoyed partly by his own Freddy Krueger. Not only is the film similar stylistically and thematically to its big brother, it also borrows a few exclusive traits, namely the one-liners and dreamscapes. Thankfully Pileggi is up to the task of being a ruthless character who enjoys his share of dirty work, and for the first half of the movie we are treated to a truly frightening and seemingly unstoppable presence. It's a shame then that the movie peters out in the second half, making way for ridiculous scenarios and inane plot-twists, culminating in a "so bad it's good" chase scene through TV channels that feels like it belongs in a different film altogether. It's an often confusing film and a mixed bag for sure. In fact, one can't help but feel the movie is too scripts crammed into one. The first half is a nice, suspenseful slasher flick, while the second feels like its fantastical sequel that takes things a bit too far. Perhaps Craven had a premonition regarding the film's box office take and figured it best to get it all wrapped up in one film.There's a bit of social commentary and satire running throughout the film, but sadly it's lost amongst the mean-spirited violence and the constant throbbing of its heavy metal soundtrack. It's ironic then that these distractions are the film's strengths. Once you turn off your brain and stop trying to analyze the inanity of "Shocker," it can be enjoyed as the schlocky shocker it truly is.

Wes Craven's "Shocker" doesn't have much of a reputation, but I didn't mind it although I thought it just got too silly as it went along almost becoming a joke upon itself. However it does hark back to the surrealistic touches of Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street", as Craven recycles certain ideas (like the suburbia setting) and adds variations with no real narrative stringing them together. But with that in mind, I found it to be an mildly rousing, if unevenly confounded horror comedy with Craven's vivid direction (with characteristically free-flowing cinematography) and an amusing animated performance by Mitch Pileggi as a family serial killer who manages to survive the electric chair by body hopping to continue his vicious murder spree while also seeking vengeance against the teenager (a deadpan Peter Berg) that put him in the chair. I actually prefer it, before its gimmicky electricity angle kicks in and then it drags on for far too long. The story kind of reminded me of the similar themed "The Horror Show" (1989), but that one was much more serious. "Shocker" can be dark in spots (and surprisingly violent with its splatter), but its soften by its self-knowing dialogues (the killer's smart arse remarks), daft actions and goofy eccentricity. Some scenes are so ridiculous like something out of a cartoon, which can be its charm or Achilles heal. The special effects are clean and direct, while the score has a constant anxious drill to the cues. Performances are adequate with Michael Murphy showing up and there are some small parts for Ted Raimi and Heather Langenkamp. More so cheesy than electrifying, but unassuming entertainment nonetheless.

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.)