Good for one or two viewings, if you're into this type of horror. 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. 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. The horror in both segments is fairly chilling and disturbing. The special effects are about as good as they get for a TV movie budget. The direction is pretty good, especially for a TV movie. 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 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). 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 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. 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. 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. 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 felt totally torn between the seriousness of a hitchhiker-horror story and the humor of a wind-up character. 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. But I was blown away by my favorite character, the wind-up teeth. As for the second story, well, I can't say much without giving too much away. OK, there is a rather serious horror story going on in the background, and Matt Frewer does some excellent hand-acting. I thought the army, and how they got that way, were very funny. If you happened to see the modern "Addams Family" remake then you can extrapolate: picture a bunch of "Thing" hands running around free. And what if your hands plotted a revolution requiring an army of hands from other people. So, imagine what would happen if your hands stopped responding to commands from your brain and began doing whatever *they* wanted to do. And it should be noted that I haven't read the original stories I judge the movie as a stand-alone form of entertainment. All in all, if you have nothing better to watch, this WILL keep you very entertained.a huge guilty pleasure.Īt 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. Author Clive Barker and director John Landis even offer their not-so-subtle cameos. Lloyd is overacting (or overREacting?) in a script full of clichés. The special effects are simply awful in the hand-attack narrative. It's a very corny, silly movie that is easy to watch. The movie is perhaps unintentionally bad, but I was entertained. Yes, it's as silly as it sounds, and hilarious to watch. The next involves a man whose hand is chopped off by his other hand (!) and all the hands in the world start a revolt. His tale involves a similar fate involving a man named Charlie (Matt Frewer) who picks up a hitchhiker and is nearly killed by him. His first he delivers to a newlywed bride whose car has broken down, and whose husband has wandered away looking for a gas station. (Wow, big difference.) Christopher Lloyd plays Quicksilver, a mysterious old man who roams the country delivering moral tales. I later found out that it was not actually a TV show, but rather a television movie. It looked pretty bad, but there was something about it that was strangely fascinating. I decided to put the TV on and one of the first channels I flipped to was a show starring Christopher Lloyd. I was in a mediocre hotel in England, up at two in the morning and couldn't get to sleep.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |