SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

ptusler1 This is an amusing movie if only because it is so bad. The Geiger counter sound effect is just crinkling paper. The night time shots are done with a slight blue filter, but you can still see plain daylight. Just to make sure you don't get confused, though, a very loud soundtrack of crickets is played. The most interesting part of the movie is the luger with the 30-round clip. The understanding of radioactivity is laughable. The monster is wonderfully bad. I also enjoyed how people who are living in the aftermath of world destruction seem to be obsessed with the swimming pool and bikinis. But what the heck, break out the popcorn, your favorite intoxicating beverage, and enjoy the badness of this movie!

BrockoBomma In The Year 2889 was shown in the wee hours of the morning recently on the MGM-HD cable channel. If I hadn't DVR'd it, I wouldn't have seen it. As far as I can tell, the makers didn't even bother to rewrite the script from the original "Day The World Ended". "...2889" is in color while the original "Day..." was in black & white. It is noted that 2889 was made for TV, and I imagine the makers may not have wanted to incur extra "unnecessary" budgetary expenses.The movie plods along slowly and the acting is atrocious. There are no characters that are particularly likable. One redeeming quality is that it is a sure cure if you are having trouble getting to sleep. I'm a big fan of old, preferably bad, sci-fi & horror movies, but this one isn't even good enough to be bad! If you still want to watch it, at least go with the original.

randylanders I stumbled across this film on Encore Action the other late night, and was surprised to see that it's a complete remake of the original sf film "The Day the World Ended" (1955). Even the dialogue is almost word-for-word. Ironically, this version though colorful just doesn't grab the viewer. The characters seem one dimensional (the original features two-dimension characters). The cast of this film are virtually cardboard cutouts. The cast from the 1955 version featured bit actors like Touch Connors (better known as Mike Conners in recent years) and Richard Denning and they outshone this inept cast completely. I would recommend skipping this version altogether and looking up the original, preferably the wide screen format as opposed to the 16mm print that seems to be running on AMC these days.

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.