arfdawg-1 In a post nuclear Earth, survivors are hold up in a valley and have to protect themselves from mutant human beings, and each other in some cases.An AIP film from the 70s. That might just be enough to tell you what you are going to get.Stock footage.Bad voice over.Horrible direction.Bad acting.And whoever did the sound should be drummed out of the union.Everyone echoes throughout the entire movie!!

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- In the year 2889, 1967. A small family has a special rural home and provisions to survive after a nuclear war. After a nuclear war incident the home and family are faced with coping with new people and problems that threaten their survival.*Special Stars- Paul Peterson.*Theme- Teamwork and planning can overcome problems.*Trivia/location/goofs- Remake of a previous good film, 'The Day the World Ended'.*Emotion- I did not enjoy this film after seeing it's original one, 'The Day the World Ended'. The roles and casting were updated from the original film shot in the early 50's to late 60's casting; the stripper became a dancer, the hood became the dancer's manager, the prospector became a local cattleman and so on. As such, the character's were less interesting and therefore boring.*Based On- A Jules Verne short story of the same title.

Cristi_Ciopron No, you dirty nerds, Buchanan is no competitor for the worst director ever chair. There are other _deluders far worse than him. I read the comments of the kids who trash Buchanan and what do I see—none of them seems to be that addicted to, say, Bergman or Welles or Godard; then, why the fuss? IN THE YEAR 2889 is by no means THE WORST MOVIE EVER, or any such thing the frustrated nerds use to bark; no, dear readers, not by a long shot. It is a watchable clumsy movie; and one, even if a nerd, ought not to confuse clumsy with bad. 2889 it's even some kind of a pretty decent clumsy flick; unassuming and _unambitious.In the distant future, a number of nuclear detonations have brought the end of human society as we know it. The whole civilization seems to have been extinguished—save for a handful of people, men and women, horny and chaste, lustful and repressed, bitchy or sage, deluded or simply mean. But that's again our society—in a teaspoon.

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.