Quicksilver Highway

At the time of this writing I'm a bit confused because the version I saw gave the "hand" story first followed by the "teeth" story, but comments here and on Amazon say the movie presents the two stories the other way around. And it should be noted that I haven't read the original stories; I judge the movie as a stand-alone form of entertainment.

So, imagine what would happen if your hands stopped responding to commands from your brain and began doing whatever *they* wanted to do. And what if your hands plotted a revolution requiring an army of hands from other people. If you happened to see the modern "Addams Family" remake then you can extrapolate: picture a bunch of "Thing" hands running around free. I thought the army, and how they got that way, were very funny. OK, there is a rather serious horror story going on in the background, and Matt Frewer does some excellent hand-acting.

As for the second story, well, I can't say much without giving too much away. But I was blown away by my favorite character, the wind-up teeth. I have a small collection of similar wind-ups, similar in that they walk or play instruments, but I never saw anything like these teeth. I felt totally torn between the seriousness of a hitchhiker-horror story and the humor of a wind-up character. Enjoy, just for fun.

I'm sorry I had to spent my money on this movie, because this definitely has to be the worst movie I have ever seen in my life !!!

The reason I didn't like the movie is that the whole movie I was waiting for something to happen, but it just didn't !!

Also the whole idea of hands on the loose isn't quite what I expected from a Stephen King-based movie...

So my advice to you is : DON'T RENT IT !! it's a waiste of your precious dollars.

I'll start this review by saying that I've read neither of the short stories that this movie is based on, neither Stephen King's Chattery Teeth, nor Cliver Barker's The Body Politic, so I can't comment on whether or not they're accurate conversions of the stories. I will say, however, that based on my limited knowledge of King's work(and my even more limited knowledge of Barker's) that I do believe that they did a pretty good job on bringing the stories to life in this movie. The plot for both stories is good(yes, even the King story, I have to admit, though I despise his works), and it's both involving and interesting, for both segments. The acting ranges from made-for-TV standard, and slightly better; all four of the leads did a good job, as far as I'm concerned: Christopher Lloyd, Matt Frewer, Raphael Sbarge and Missy Crider. I especially enjoyed Lloyd, and his character, the storyteller, who is in both the prologue and the epilogue for both segments, and gives a further chill down the spine with his afterthoughts for both stories. The characters are well-written, credible and easy to relate to, which, I guess, can be credited almost as much to the original authors(King and Barker) as the script writer and director(who, incidentally, is the same person). Both segments are about equally chilling and horrifying, though the first has more buildup and the second has more actual action, which shows the difference in the authors' styles. The direction is pretty good, especially for a TV movie. The special effects are about as good as they get for a TV movie budget. The horror in both segments is fairly chilling and disturbing. They also both give you a little something to think about, once the story is over; this is also pushed a little further in the epilogue for both segments, by the storyteller, Lloyd, which obviously proves that the director/scriptwriter Mick Garris certainly understood both stories, as well as their underlying themes. All in all, a pretty good way to spend 90 minutes if it's on TV and you've got nothing spectacular to do, but not something you'll be watching over and over again. Good for one or two viewings, if you're into this type of horror. I recommend it to fans of King, Barker and Lloyd, and possibly also Garris. Good for spending 90 minutes watching if it's on, and you've got nothing better to do. 6/10

I was in a mediocre hotel in England, up at two in the morning and couldn't get to sleep. I decided to put the TV on and one of the first channels I flipped to was a show starring Christopher Lloyd. It looked pretty bad, but there was something about it that was strangely fascinating...

I later found out that it was not actually a TV show, but rather a television movie. (Wow, big difference.) Christopher Lloyd plays Quicksilver, a mysterious old man who roams the country delivering moral tales. His first he delivers to a newlywed bride whose car has broken down, and whose husband has wandered away looking for a gas station.

His tale involves a similar fate involving a man named Charlie (Matt Frewer) who picks up a hitchhiker and is nearly killed by him.

The next involves a man whose hand is chopped off by his other hand (!) and all the hands in the world start a revolt. Yes, it's as silly as it sounds, and hilarious to watch.

The movie is perhaps unintentionally bad, but I was entertained. It's a very corny, silly movie that is easy to watch. The special effects are simply awful in the hand-attack narrative. I loved it.

Lloyd is overacting (or overREacting?) in a script full of clichés. Author Clive Barker and director John Landis even offer their not-so-subtle cameos.

All in all, if you have nothing better to watch, this WILL keep you very entertained...a huge guilty pleasure.

Fans of Stephen King and Clive Barker will love the two horror stories told in this swift refreshing movie. Stephen King fans will remember "Cat's Eye" from 1983 which starred James Woods and a young Drew Barrymore which told similar tales. Both tales are both horrifying and funny and they are joined together by Christopher Lloyd acting as a deviant soul looking for "America's lost heart". This movie is never a classic, but it was never supposed to be. It's a light hearted look at horror with sarcastic overtones. A refreshing horror movie.