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.

Stephen King may be the man behind Shawshank Redemption, Dolores Clairborne and the Green Mile. But he was also the man behind Thinner, Children of the Corn and one of the worst episodes of the X-Files ever. Clive Barker (you could say he is King's English counterpart) was the writer behind Hellraiser, Lord of Illusions. But he was also the man behind the novel Coldheart Canyon. Both writers have talent. But they have pitfalls too; we are all human.

And Quicksilver Highway isn't exactly their best.

Quicksilver Highway seems like a movie made out of two mediocre stories that came out of the minds of two great writers. Perhaps they were among their worst stories. If that was the case, they shouldn't have made it to television. The first one, the Clattering Teeth, isn't so bad. But it is unoriginal and dull. So dull you just want it to end. But it goes on and on. Eventually it becomes tiresome; since this movie was made for TV, you may find yourself going to the kitchen to look inside the refrigerator before it ends and the other one begins. The second story, the one written by Clive Barker, seems more like the work of Stephen King. Here we have a hand that gets life of its own and turn against its owner. Soon other hands join a revolution. The story could have consumed thirty minutes of your life. But it didn't stop when it should have. Just like the first story, it went on and on. Maybe you can forget about the hands walking around on their own and return to the kitchen. This film may help you gain weight but gets short when it comes to entertaining us.

Quicksilver Highway only has two stories. Not five or three like Creepshow I and II. After you watch this film, you feel like you have escaped out of a neverending nightmare. It is obvious that they wanted to stretch the stories long enough to make a film and not another episode of the Twilight Zone.

Perhaps it is a good idea to avoid this one at all cost.

It`s misleading to describe QUICKSILVER HIGHWAY as a TV movie because it feels like two episodes of an anthology show like THE TWILIGHT ZONE stuck together . By that I mean Mr Quicksilver relates the stories at two different locations , a desert(ed ) highway and a funfair . Is there any reason for this apart from the denounements ?

As for the stories themselves CHATTERING TEETH is probably the better but only when it`s being played straight devoid of its silly supernatural tones. Giving a ride to a hitch hiker who seems to border on the psycotic , yeah a good premise that ends up being ignored which seems to have been a problem with Stephen King stories for many years

I did read Clive Barker`s THE BODY POLITIC many years ago . It`s an imaginative story and one which I couldn`t help admiring Barker`s writing skills . However it`s one of those fantasy tales that is unfilmable since a revolution involving hands will come across as totally bizarre and unintentionally funny when realized on screen . So I`ve got to disagree with the chap who said THE BODY POLITIC is both tongue in cheek and misunderstood - No it`s not , it only comes across that way down to using a different meduim to what Barker envisaged

And also got to repeat my criticism that this " TVM " feels like a failed anthology series with two episodes stuck together

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.

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.