IMDb RATING
5.4/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
A trio of scientists plan to create a self-replicating, immortal, hermaphrodite using the Final Programme developed by a dead, Nobel Prize-winning scientist.A trio of scientists plan to create a self-replicating, immortal, hermaphrodite using the Final Programme developed by a dead, Nobel Prize-winning scientist.A trio of scientists plan to create a self-replicating, immortal, hermaphrodite using the Final Programme developed by a dead, Nobel Prize-winning scientist.
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination total
Sandy Ratcliff
- Jenny
- (as Sandy Ratcliffe)
Mary MacLeod
- Nurse
- (as Mary Macleod)
Delores Delmar
- Fortune Teller
- (as Dolores Del Mar)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
5.41.2K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Kind of a slightly Hip, Swing'n film of it's time, but ultimately quite disjointed and rather aimless and unsatisfying...
This was indeed a strange one. If you read the story synopsis here and then watch the film you will likely be very confused.
I do like many movies made around this time and a few years earlier. They were rather experimental, especially in not following a classic narrative but more like throwing various scenes and images at you like a kaleidoscope. And, many of them around that time and a little earlier were intriguing snapshots of the rapidly changing social order, especially in the UK. But, in order to pull something kind of 'Trippy' like they are trying to do here, you really need to assemble the visuals, sounds, and mood in an effective way. And, sadly, this one falls a little short.
It Is rather intriguing... for a while. But, although you have a rough outline about what's going on with the 'Family', the more Science Fiction elements are extremely vague. There are indeed some nice visuals and scenes scattered throughout the film that are interesting, but it honestly isn't held together very well. I particularly liked the character he went to for the 'Napalm' I think it was. The guy was intriguingly very odd and intense and the surrounding set was kind of creative.
At first, the main guy came across like the usual spoiled, arrogant, unlikeable person of the time. But, I will admit that after his dialog with his (Handyman, Butler?) and his discussions with some of the others, he then seemed to come across as a bit more genuinely 'Cool' and likeable.
I think the main thing holding this movie back is that, again, if you are going to try to make one of these visually 'Hip' (for the time) and kind of Trippy films, you really have to invest a lot more thought into creating a truly involving mood, look, or whatever to engage the audience. And, that to me anyway is where this movie falls down.
So, for a few, scattered scenes that were kind of interesting looking, and some of the slightly Trippy mood, and what turns out to be a bit more of a likeable leading man, I gave this a '5' But, honestly, unless you're someone who is intensely interested in the time period, and even then, there really isn't much of a truly engaging story here to keep one's interest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What I try to do in my reviews is do my best to explain whether I think it is a Good film, or if I think that it is an Entertaining movie and what I feel it's strengths and weaknesses are. I don't waste your time on just restating the plot which you can get from a lot of other places.
Hopefully, that way it will be of more benefit and be of real help to you as to whether I feel the movie is worth watching (and also perhaps what 'Type' of film it is and what type of people may enjoy it)
My Particular Way of Rating:
5 - Flawed, but perhaps with a little entertainment value here and there for some.
6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.
7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.
And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )
I do like many movies made around this time and a few years earlier. They were rather experimental, especially in not following a classic narrative but more like throwing various scenes and images at you like a kaleidoscope. And, many of them around that time and a little earlier were intriguing snapshots of the rapidly changing social order, especially in the UK. But, in order to pull something kind of 'Trippy' like they are trying to do here, you really need to assemble the visuals, sounds, and mood in an effective way. And, sadly, this one falls a little short.
It Is rather intriguing... for a while. But, although you have a rough outline about what's going on with the 'Family', the more Science Fiction elements are extremely vague. There are indeed some nice visuals and scenes scattered throughout the film that are interesting, but it honestly isn't held together very well. I particularly liked the character he went to for the 'Napalm' I think it was. The guy was intriguingly very odd and intense and the surrounding set was kind of creative.
At first, the main guy came across like the usual spoiled, arrogant, unlikeable person of the time. But, I will admit that after his dialog with his (Handyman, Butler?) and his discussions with some of the others, he then seemed to come across as a bit more genuinely 'Cool' and likeable.
I think the main thing holding this movie back is that, again, if you are going to try to make one of these visually 'Hip' (for the time) and kind of Trippy films, you really have to invest a lot more thought into creating a truly involving mood, look, or whatever to engage the audience. And, that to me anyway is where this movie falls down.
So, for a few, scattered scenes that were kind of interesting looking, and some of the slightly Trippy mood, and what turns out to be a bit more of a likeable leading man, I gave this a '5' But, honestly, unless you're someone who is intensely interested in the time period, and even then, there really isn't much of a truly engaging story here to keep one's interest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What I try to do in my reviews is do my best to explain whether I think it is a Good film, or if I think that it is an Entertaining movie and what I feel it's strengths and weaknesses are. I don't waste your time on just restating the plot which you can get from a lot of other places.
Hopefully, that way it will be of more benefit and be of real help to you as to whether I feel the movie is worth watching (and also perhaps what 'Type' of film it is and what type of people may enjoy it)
My Particular Way of Rating:
5 - Flawed, but perhaps with a little entertainment value here and there for some.
6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.
7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.
And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )
Fun, confused 70's Moorcock romp.
I saw the ads for "The Last Days Of Man On Earth" well before I could watch "R" films, but I was always wanting to see it. It dropped into a bit of obscurity stateside, and it was years before I found a copy. Shortly after I saw it, Anchor Bay issued the uncut original in limited quantities, and I managed to grab one.
well, the book is better. But Jon Finch is the perfect Jerry Cornelius, and this may be his best work. Jenny Runacre is every bit as good as "Miss Brunner", though her character doesn't quite embody the written character to the degree of Finch. Ron Lacey also shines, in a brief turn as the sun glassed assassin, "Shades", walking straight out of the books pages.
The low budget is disguised well, but the film needed a bit more for effects, relying on a lot of color tinting, sound effects, and old style inflatable "sculptures", to fill the screen.
Moorcock hates it, but this embodies the spirit that fueled "New Worlds", the science fiction magazine that brought Moorcock to the worlds attention, rather well, invoking much classic British entertainment of the recent past. The original cut is preferable, but "The Last Days Of Man On Earth" is a completely different edit of the film, not just a retitling. The differences aren't major, but the US removes everything that even borders on superfluous, with much minor trimming being done to almost every scene. In an odd parallel with "A Boy And His Dog", it follows the overall story arc acceptably, but adds a joke in poor taste to the conclusion, and many have found that alone, was enough to sour their perceptions.
It comes close to bringing Moorcocks world to the cinema, but isn't quite there. Here's hoping that someone might make another attempt.
well, the book is better. But Jon Finch is the perfect Jerry Cornelius, and this may be his best work. Jenny Runacre is every bit as good as "Miss Brunner", though her character doesn't quite embody the written character to the degree of Finch. Ron Lacey also shines, in a brief turn as the sun glassed assassin, "Shades", walking straight out of the books pages.
The low budget is disguised well, but the film needed a bit more for effects, relying on a lot of color tinting, sound effects, and old style inflatable "sculptures", to fill the screen.
Moorcock hates it, but this embodies the spirit that fueled "New Worlds", the science fiction magazine that brought Moorcock to the worlds attention, rather well, invoking much classic British entertainment of the recent past. The original cut is preferable, but "The Last Days Of Man On Earth" is a completely different edit of the film, not just a retitling. The differences aren't major, but the US removes everything that even borders on superfluous, with much minor trimming being done to almost every scene. In an odd parallel with "A Boy And His Dog", it follows the overall story arc acceptably, but adds a joke in poor taste to the conclusion, and many have found that alone, was enough to sour their perceptions.
It comes close to bringing Moorcocks world to the cinema, but isn't quite there. Here's hoping that someone might make another attempt.
Slick trip
Sort of like Zardoz crossed with Planet of the Apes.
The film is well acted, well shot, and the plot holds together... even though the Nazis are dragged in a bit, but not to the detriment of the film.
It is allegorical, and rather clever twist on some poetry for those who have taken Humanities classes in school.
Worth a look if you are new to film, and are looking for something out of the ordinary, that requires a bit of knowledge to hang with.
The film is well acted, well shot, and the plot holds together... even though the Nazis are dragged in a bit, but not to the detriment of the film.
It is allegorical, and rather clever twist on some poetry for those who have taken Humanities classes in school.
Worth a look if you are new to film, and are looking for something out of the ordinary, that requires a bit of knowledge to hang with.
A very tasty world.
A simplification - albeit a rather offbeat one - of one book in a series of novels by Michael Moorcock, "The Final Programme" may work better for people who haven't read the novel. Therefore, they can appreciate it for what it is, and not fret about what it isn't. This viewer admits that it took a while to grab hold for him personally, but it's just quirky enough and provocative enough to make for a reasonably entertaining movie. I would be surprised if it didn't have some sort of cult following by this point.
Jon Finch ("Frenzy") is front and centre here as the character Jerry Cornelius, a sardonic scientific genius living in a world on the possible brink of apocalypse. He gets involved in the hunt for some valuable microfilm. It contains a revelatory formula (devised by his late father) for creating a self-replicating human being, and possibly a new Messiah. Jerry must deal with a comely but conniving computer expert (Jenny Runacre, "The Witches"), and the machinations of his weaselly brother Frank (Derrick O'Connor, "Lethal Weapon 2").
The first-rate supporting cast includes Sterling Hayden ("The Godfather") in a brief cameo as a wheeler-dealer American major, Harry Andrews ("The Hill"), Hugh Griffith ("Ben-Hur"), the stunning Julie Ege ("Creatures the World Forgot"), Patrick Magee ("A Clockwork Orange"), Graham Crowden ("The Company of Wolves"), George Coulouris ("Citizen Kane"), Ronald Lacey ("Raiders of the Lost Ark"), and Sarah Douglas ("Superman" and "Superman II"). Finch is amusing as a protagonist who's always quick with the pointed comments, and Runacre is enticing as the woman determined to see her plan through. (She also has a tendency to *consume* her lovers.)
Complete with sex, nudity, action, and a bit of globe-trotting, "The Final Programme" also benefits from the striking visual approach by production designer / screenwriter / director Robert Fuest, whose other 70s feature films include the "Dr. Phibes" movies, "And Soon the Darkness", and "The Devils' Rain". Bizarre and stylish, it can get goofy at times, but it's definitely not boring.
Seven out of 10.
Jon Finch ("Frenzy") is front and centre here as the character Jerry Cornelius, a sardonic scientific genius living in a world on the possible brink of apocalypse. He gets involved in the hunt for some valuable microfilm. It contains a revelatory formula (devised by his late father) for creating a self-replicating human being, and possibly a new Messiah. Jerry must deal with a comely but conniving computer expert (Jenny Runacre, "The Witches"), and the machinations of his weaselly brother Frank (Derrick O'Connor, "Lethal Weapon 2").
The first-rate supporting cast includes Sterling Hayden ("The Godfather") in a brief cameo as a wheeler-dealer American major, Harry Andrews ("The Hill"), Hugh Griffith ("Ben-Hur"), the stunning Julie Ege ("Creatures the World Forgot"), Patrick Magee ("A Clockwork Orange"), Graham Crowden ("The Company of Wolves"), George Coulouris ("Citizen Kane"), Ronald Lacey ("Raiders of the Lost Ark"), and Sarah Douglas ("Superman" and "Superman II"). Finch is amusing as a protagonist who's always quick with the pointed comments, and Runacre is enticing as the woman determined to see her plan through. (She also has a tendency to *consume* her lovers.)
Complete with sex, nudity, action, and a bit of globe-trotting, "The Final Programme" also benefits from the striking visual approach by production designer / screenwriter / director Robert Fuest, whose other 70s feature films include the "Dr. Phibes" movies, "And Soon the Darkness", and "The Devils' Rain". Bizarre and stylish, it can get goofy at times, but it's definitely not boring.
Seven out of 10.
John Steed drops acid
A shortened version of the film first released as The Final Programme, from Michael Moorcock's novel of that name. Jerry Cornelius is the perfect universal hero/anti-hero in a disintegrating world. His search for his father's invention involves him with his mad brother Frank and the sinister programmer, Miss Brunner. The acting is over the top (one reviewer described it as "rug-chewing"), hip, and outrageous. The flip, self-mocking style owes a great deal to The Avengers, The Prisoner, and possibly even the Beatles.
Did you know
- TriviaA few years after making this film, Sterling Hayden was interviewed for a British magazine and insisted that Robert Fuest was his favorite director, the best he had ever worked with. As Hayden has only one scene in this film, and almost certainly took no longer than a couple of days to film it, perhaps less, and as he also spoke in the same interview about his work with Stanley Kubrick, John Huston, Bernardo Bertolucci, Robert Altman and Nicholas Ray, it may be that he was being sarcastic.
- Quotes
Nurse: It's much easier to run a hospital with all the patients sleeping.
Jerry Cornelius: Easiest way to run the world, for that matter.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Nightmare Theatre's Late Night Chill-o-Rama Horror Show Vol. 1 (1996)
- How long is The Final Programme?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- The Last Days of Man on Earth
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






