Shocker

Audience Reviews

View More (424)

Stephen C Success in 1 hour and 51 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ages 17 and older!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 10/16/25 Full Review Zom L Wes Craven’s Shocker feels like a wild mix of slasher, supernatural horror, and satirical comedy that never quite finds the right balance. The premise—a murderous TV repairman who becomes pure electricity after the electric chair—sounds like a campy blast, but the execution is uneven. On the plus side, the film has moments of raw, chaotic energy that almost make it worth the ride. Mitch Pileggi is genuinely unsettling (and occasionally funny) as Horace Pinker, chewing the scenery with villainous glee. Craven’s creativity shows in the surreal TV-hopping sequences, which were ambitious for the late ’80s and still carry a certain lo-fi charm. The soundtrack, full of hard rock and heavy metal, also gives the film a rebellious, anarchic personality. But the problems pile up quickly. The tone is all over the place—sometimes playing as a straight horror film, sometimes veering into parody, and sometimes just indulging in camp. The characters, aside from Pinker, feel paper-thin, and Peter Berg’s lead performance never gives the audience much to latch onto emotionally. The movie’s pacing drags in places, and what could’ve been a lean horror flick often feels padded out and unfocused. Ultimately, Shocker is a mess of ideas that never fully click. It has a culty charm in its sheer absurdity, but it’s far from top-tier Craven. Fans of gonzo late-’80s horror may find something to love, but as a whole, it fizzles rather than shocks. Creative but uneven, more chaotic curiosity than classic. Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 09/12/25 Full Review Justin T I was a bit disappointed by this film. It’s quite a strange experience. It’s a pretty dull and generic slasher movie with some mildly interesting derivative moments. The special effects are very cheesy. The characters are fairly memorable with mostly good acting. I didn’t like Mitch Pileggi though, he was over-acting and not in a good way, director Wes Craven is probably partially to blame for that. It’s simply not a good film, one of Craven’s worst although not as bad as The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984). The flight choreography, cinematography and direction are all pretty weak. They don’t have enough story, it’s very much rinse and repeat. The film cannot fill the runtime. A serial killer jumps into different bodies and tries to kill the person that caught him. That’s it. Not worth the effort you put into finding and watching it. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 07/24/25 Full Review thiago s Filme ruim, o roteiro é fraco, as cenas são fracas, a história é fraca, o elenco é fraco, e ninguém ajuda a melhorar o filme, os personagens são fracos, e o filme deveria ter cenas bem melhores e relevantes, para fazer o filme ser bom. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 04/09/25 Full Review Jacob M I always thought this was a cool, fast paced schlock fest that is probably better with nostalgic lenses....This was his second film in his Universal pictures trilogy.... The Serpent and the Rainbow was Wes at his most serious, Shocker is Wes at his most campy, and People Under the Stairs was him finding a balance between the two. I loved all three movies... Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 01/28/25 Full Review Lupo E I know on the surface it’s a cinematic masterpiece. I just remember watching it like 15 times when it came out on VHS. I had late fees on this one. Your mileage may vary. Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 01/18/25 Full Review Read all reviews

Shocker

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now