Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Rainey Dawn Roger Corman's "Day the World Ended (1955)" - watch it instead. In the Year 2889 (1967) is a dull made for TV remake of Corman's sci-fi horror classic. Really, why watch this dull film when you can see the original which is a thousand times better?!! This film is almost word for word, scene by scene Corman's film.The only reason why to watch this film is for Paul Peterson (of "The Donna Reed Show" and the song "My Dad") - that's it! And it's a pretty lame reason to watch this movie. I guess another reason to watch this film is to see just how awful some remakes are.The mutated monster in Corman's film might be a little comical looking but still fun to watch. This remake film version's monster looks, well, dumb and simply goofy.3/10

rooster_davis What a horrible movie. After watching it I can understand Paul Peterson's bitterness toward Hollywood. How on Earth did he get hooked up with this production? Frankly I never thought all that much of him as Jeff on The Donna Reed Show or anything else he ever did - he always seems to be playing the role of "Paul Peterson" no matter what role he's in, simply a poor actor - but even HE didn't deserve to be in this piece of dung. The story is ridiculous, the script is abysmal, and other than the color film and processing I think it cost about $100 total to make. When Paul Peterson is actually the high point of a movie, it's ba-a-a-d. Ah yes, good ol' Paul in his khaki slacks and velour turtleneck, one wonders when Donna Reed might turn up. When one of the main characters realizes that Peterson's character and a young lady may be the only people left on Earth to have children and rebuild the population, he notes that it being an emergency, a ship's captain could marry them so they could start making babies. With nearly the whole planet wiped out, someone is going to care if they get married? What are they going to do, cheat on each other? Hoo boy.I like bad movies when they're so bad they're funny, but this one just stinks.

Mark Dale I would have given this one a 10 for the entertainment value that goes with really bad movies like "Plan 9 from outer space". While plan 9 has the dubious distinction of being the worst movie ever, this one could easily rival Plan 9 for that title. The acting is well, OK, but the script, plot, some acting, believability, make-up and other tangibles and intangibles are simply horrifically bad. For this reason, it's one I will watch when you can find it here and there on cable. It's purely entertaining if you take it for what it is and not try and critique it for it's movie worthiness. If you watch this for what it is, you will be thoroughly entertained like you would watching say Plan 9. So I give it a 1 star for picture quality and 10 stars for being the worst movie ever contender. It gives me a laugh every time.

lost-in-limbo I guess this is what it would be like if decided to watch TV static for 80mins… yep the no-budget post-nuclear 'In the Year 2889' is a gruelling experience it utterly doomed boredom. Well at least TV static would be consistent. It's a film that only wants to talk and preach, but really has nothing good or interesting to say. Sure some things coming out of the actors mouth sound important (scientific theories and discussions "that you first got to understand"… what's there to understand?), but more often it's gratingly blunt and stupid. Everyone seems senseless to ever-growing threat of their own friction and of the unknowns of the atomic aftermaths. But strangely they get those feelings when something isn't right. The light-weight melodramatic story is a basement-bargain rehash of Roger Corman's "The Day the World Ended.", but only much slower (sloth-like), talky and aimless with an atrociously dud ending. The radioactive side-effects; laughter or sleepiness… and I lean more towards the latter affecting those experiencing this apocalyptic train-wreck. Director Larry Buchanan languidly no-frills direction is wooden all-round with no sense of pacing, tension and atmosphere. The isolated woodland locations keep it moody though. That humming zing-dinger score only hurts than complements. Camera-work is colourlessly beat-up, while let's not go near those crustily botched (but in-character) make-up effects of the mutants. A state of the art rubber mask... plus I'll throw in free claws. Gee just writing about it, is making me dose off. The alluring Quinn O'Hara (who nicely fills out a two piece) was the only performance (not a perfect one) in the cast who didn't fade and kicked up some spunk. Neil Fletcher's know-all character rubs you up the wrong way, and the two young stars Paul Petersen and Charla Doherty are stiltedly poor. An unimaginatively laboured and vapid foray.