Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Leofwine_draca THE CLONES is a very low budget science fiction thriller put out by New World International. It's part of a 1970s-era trend for cloning movies alongside those favoured government conspiracy thrillers a la COMA. This one seems to have been inspired by THE MAN WHO HAUNTED HIMSELF. A scientist involved in a pioneering research programme is involved in an accident and soon discovers that he has been replaced by his own clone. He goes on the run with assassins in tow and a lot of the running time is spent on low rent action and chase sequences; the climatic set-piece at an abandoned fairground is particularly well realised. The film is cheap-looking and rough around the edges, but also well-paced and involving at times. It's a little repetitive but mildly entertaining too; far from the worst I've seen.

R C The Clones is more than worthwhile for those who admire ambitious shoestring budget film-making. Principal among its charms is its eerie stylistic inventiveness, with disorienting tracking shots, upside-down fish-eye camera-work, offbeat locations, and weird effects on the soundtrack, ensuring that an oppressive 70s paranoia takes hold of the viewer.The script is hit-and-miss, sometimes dumb, and the story weakens when the clone conspiracy is revealed to be only a part of a much, much broader sci-fi intrigue. The aforementioned strengths more than compensate for any failings, however. The Clones is a film that will be best appreciated by those who enjoy old, modestly budgeted but atmospheric speculative movies like Seconds, It's Alive, or The Terminal Man.

larryblanks I've been looking for a video of this film for many years. Mainly so I can give it as a gag gift to a buddy of mine that saw it with me back in 1973.The bad part was, it had been my idea to see this particular film. To me it has the potential of a good plot and even though there wasn't a big name cast, I really thought it would be okay.I can honestly say that there is not one single redeeming part of this film that would have me recommend itOne line in the film is uttered by a man running through a swamp and falls. As he lays there he is looking at a frog sitting across from him and in his mind is saying, "Humans are not like frogs....." My verbal comment was, "Yeah, a frog wouldn't pay three dollars to come and see this stupid movie!" at which time we left. (my line got a better audience reaction than the whole film) Sorry, not something I can recommend.

caspian1978 I reason why Clones is taken for a bad movie is because of the films direction. Clones was directed by two directors. Without even looking at the credits, you can tell by the two different styles of direction seen during the movie. One direction is clearly bad as the camera is hand held and always moving. The other direction is classic 1974 "trip" direction that makes you feel like your on a drug. The story is excellent. Original science fiction that can only be matched with Boys from Brazil. When I first wrote this review many years ago, I was contacted by Paul Hunt, the Director who was upset at my comments. The truth he wanted me to let the public know is that they filmed this with a tiny budget and with a short time. Considering this, I would say that the Clones was one of many movies in its era that was quickly pushed out in order to make a quick profit. To give credit when credit is due, the Clones can be considered a misunderstood film. However, it is worth watching just to check out the great ending (which you do not see coming). Trust me.