Quicksilver Highway

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.

What drove the needs for this movie is anybody's guess. They're based on boring stories from King and Barker. Christopher Lloyd does nothing as the sinister Quicksilver and generally the whole thing is a bore. Yes, there are a few chilling moments but basically I wouldn't waste your time.

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.

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

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