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

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.

Michael DeZubiria The story of In the Year 2889 is your standard bad b-movie plot about the end of the world, except there is not a single thing done to make the world look futuristic. I would grant that they managed to pull off a thick, muggy version of the early 70s, so I guess they achieved a few years of a futuristic look, but it's more likely that I just can't tell the difference between 1967 and, say, 1972 or so.The movie is an exercise in ham-handed and clunky story-telling. The sound dubbing is amazingly bad and doesn't even begin to match the action on screen, but no matter. Clearly this is a no-budget production so things like this must be forgiven. Or at least excused. The characters are in a fallout shelter, and wouldn't you just know it, it comes complete with a detailed miniature model of the house and surrounding area so that the inhabitants, mostly people who live in the area, can be informed about how the surrounding mountains will protect them from the radioactive fallout.You see, the mountains are filled with lead, so any radioactivity will pass harmlessly over their heads like radio waves. Pretty convenient, although there is some concern because rain would swiftly deliver nuclear death. There is meant to be some tension about the rising radioactivity in the air, except that any exterior scenes never look like anything other than a beautiful sunny day. So there is this thing about the radioactivity passing overhead and totally changing the world around them, but soon enough they are just fraternizing and grab-assing in the bomb shelter, and before you know it, the old man is instructing all the women, including his own daughter, that they must all bear children ASAP! What a guy!Overall this is basically zero-budget nonsense. There is a title that says "The Beginning" when the movie ends, and this might be the most clever thing in the movie, so I'll let you do the math. It might have been fun had it been made as a student film or something, but the amazingly bad costumes and performances just don't belong in a commercial film meant for public viewing.