Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Sanjeev Waters A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

MonsterVision99 This remake of "The Day the World Ended" doesn't have many redeeming values, its cheap, dull, uninteresting, and a shot by shot copy of another much more entertaining movie. One could argue its one of the worst Sci-fi films ever made, but I will say that I liked how the movie looked (I like the cheap movie feel to it) and how amusingly bad it was.Its Zaat levels of awfulness in the special effects department, but for most of it its really just a boring mess of a movie, the original was the same movie, but it was charming and it was decently directed, this one its just horrible in almost every way.Watch the Corman movie instead.

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!

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.

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.