SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

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.

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.

julian kennedy In the Year 2889: 2 out of 10: Great now I can't get that damn song out of my head. (No it doesn't appear on the soundtrack. Cope to think of it I'm not sure if this film even has a soundtrack.) First of all the characters all dress and look like extras in the Zapruder film so I'm not sure where this whole year 2889 comes from.Oh yeah The earth was destroyed by nuclear radiation except this one house with three months worth of food for three people but then an extra guy shows up with an alcoholic stripper.Personally if the earth is destroyed by nuclear bombs I'm rooting for the alcoholic stripper to show up. (Heck who am I kidding I'm always rooting for the alcoholic stripper nuclear radioactive fallout or not).Very talky with some okay performances and silly monsters it is another Buchanan TV remake but better than his usual fair. More time wasting curiosity than anything mistaken for entertainment.