Plantiana
Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.
AutCuddly
Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,
Matylda Swan
It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.
trashgang
Finally I found this OOP over here on flea market for a few cent. My expectations were very high because one of my favorites was involved, Clive Barker. Mick Garris directed the flick, also a well known name in the genre. The only let down for me was Stephen King. Flicks based on his books mostly fails towards the end. While watching it it became clear that we had two episodes being told by Aaron Quicksilver (Christopher Lloyd). sadly the two episodes didn't contain any gore or even some kind of red stuff, in fact the two stories are just one big joke. I won't spoil it but you can easily watch it with your youngsters.The acting is superb and all believable, the fighting with the CGI hands did remind me a bit of Evil Dead. I guess they had a lot of fun while shooting it, look out for cameos from Clive Barker and John Landis. Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5
kakoilija
i think that a religious sermon wouldn't be scared... i guess this has something similar to all king movies with more than one tale... it's cinematography is very good, and acting is not bad.it's just that it comes across lame and very cheesy... nothing to be seen here...i give my points from technical aspects...otherwise a miss... i've seen a lot worse too, but this is not a winner.the rest of the lines i'll recommend some horror-movies: the brood the uninvited the entity changeling ...those kinda movies have some depth
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews
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
Roddy-15
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.
