Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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

gpeltz About three minutes into "In the Year 2889" viewed on you tube, I thought to myself, this seems familiar. Ten minutes into it, I knew I had seen it before, In fact, it resembled one of the pivotal horror films of my youth, a film that I had seen at the age of seven, and had found myself fascinated by how terrifying a movie could be, and how addictive the craving to be scared. The original movie, released in 1956, in black and white, was a classic by Roger Corman. The Day the World Ended. It was eerie, the monster was horrendous but was only seen in smoke and shadows till the end. The plot dealing with a small group who had survived some atomic Holocaust,now faced perils undreamed of in a post nuclear world. Those who called the original feature cheesy, could not see it with the innocent eyes of youth, the direction, action and photography and music were actually pretty good. If you had not seen the original, This version would still hold up (barely), in spite of poor cutting, average acting, and poor production values. The rubber face monster carries no fear, quite the opposite! The only reason this film holds up as well as it does, is because it was filmed with the same script as the original. There were a few changes made, but nothing significant. The lead actors tried their best, the "bad guy" in this version could not pull off the character. If you gave a good script to a mediocre director, and said, make this film with no budget, and no imagination, but follow the script; the results would most likely look like this. I promised a spoiler, Warning ! The date used in the title has absolutely nothing to do with this picture, but there is an interesting back story on IMDb. There must have been some interesting legal battles going on, to explain why Corman would allow his material to be rehashed.

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.

MartinHafer This is a very low budget remake of THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED--a film about a tiny group who have somehow survived nuclear annihilation. Considering that it was made by Larry Buchanan, it's no surprise that the film not only stinks but is rather boring. This is the same guy who managed to make MARS NEEDS WOMEN dull--and which a title like this, how could you possibly make it dull?! This is the same director who is seldom mentioned in the pantheon of bad directors but should--producing films that even Ed Wood would be ashamed of making!! The film begins just after a worldwide nuclear war. Practically everyone is dead but a small oasis of life exists all thanks to an explanation that really never made any sense. But, the old guy who explains it all seems to know what he's talking about, as he's got provisions and plans on surviving along with his daughter. However, several survivors straggle in as well as there just isn't enough food for them all AND a couple of the survivors are obvious scum--so obvious that you wonder why anyone would bother to save them! Well, with the help of one of the 'nice' survivors (Paul Peterson from "The Donna Reed Show"), they do their best to conserve the food and fight against mutants (why are there ALWAYS mutants?).Despite mutants and nuclear war and a stripper and her evil (and horny) boyfriend, Buchanan manages to make a film that seems about 20 minutes too long. The pacing is like lead and the film is so cheaply made that there really are never any thrills or excitement. While not among the very worst films I have seen, it's definitely close and only of interest to bad movie fans.This film was recently released along with another Buchanan 'classic'--IT'S ALIVE. Both are excruciatingly terrible films, but somehow IT'S ALIVE manages to provide a small amount of entertainment--something IN THE YEAR 2889 never even comes close to doing.