qmtv Decent idea. Worst camera/cinematography, crappy acting/dialogue/characters, poor TV quality This must be the worst camera/cinematography. Shaky crappy camera zooms. The worst.The story is OK but very slow. Poor TV quality, with crappy acting and dialogue. Even with a low budge, they just needed to spend more time on the screenplay.Rating a D, or a 2 just for the idea.Decent idea. Worst camera/cinematography, crappy acting/dialogue/characters, poor TV quality This must be the worst camera/cinematography. Shaky crappy camera zooms. The worst.The story is OK but very slow. Poor TV quality, with crappy acting and dialogue. Even with a low budge, they just needed to spend more time on the screenplay.Rating a D, or a 2 just for the idea.

Jearleee George I have now suffered through Parts, The Clonus Horror.To have the word horror in the title of this movie is an insult to real horror.The story was about a cloning-central owned by the "The man" They grow Clones for harvesting organs from the clones later on for the original humans in need of transplants. One clone escapes, The government gets angry and kills all involved, but the story somehow leaks out anyway.It is Truly Shameful how a movie with potential is destroyed by amateurs such as Fiveson. The only thing he genuinely succeeded in doing was to weave in the concept of human rights and the very philosophical aspect, what makes a human a human, and would it be OK to grow clones for organic harvesting? Sadly, mediocre actors have been chosen and the plot has left town, until the very end in where a pathetic attempt is made to sum it up.But!! What disturbed me the most was the introducing of new characters lacking actual relevance for the plot. Despite that, Fiveson feels the need to kill them off in a bad explosion which only Sir Coleman Francis Himself would be proud of.The setting was interesting. How Fiveson thought that pulling out sheets of plastic and running water over them would make a believable river is beyond me, but I guess if you were to compare the setting to Coleman Francis' gray pasty oatmeal of a setting, this film would win.Perhaps Coleman has changed what bad movies are for me. 3/10

Melinda For those of you who have a few kind words for this film, I suspect you didn't see it when it was released as "Parts: The Clonus Horror." It was a dreadfully boring movie. It missed the mark in at least three ways. It wasn't good enough to be scary; it wasn't bad enough to be funny (although MST3K took care of that); and, even in 1979, the plot was unoriginal.Earlier contenders are "The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler" (1971). It's the same idea (clones as spare parts). The movie is entertaining, and it had a fine cast. Another is "Sleeper" (1973). Yes, the Woody Allen movie. Remember the flattened nose? And "Clones" (1973). The last two plots aren't as similar to Clonus as the first one, but they predate Clonus.They are also several fiction books from decades earlier that deal with the idea, although often, the word "clone" isn't used.

Thomas D. Gutierrez (VoxMoose) It's a solid science fiction story that borrows heavily from pieces like Logan's Run, Brave New World, Soylent Green, and THX1138. Although the production value is rather low, the work is an honest creative effort. The movie is enjoyable, but you have to heavily rescale expectations. It is easy to put on the MST3K goggles because cultural (late 70s made-for-TV style) and special effects limitations make it feel worse than it really is. The acting isn't great, but still tops the Star Wars Prequels in that respect. Overall, as a science fiction fan, and given the poor rating on the IMDb, I found myself pleasantly surprised.