In the Year 2889

Are you ready for this? This is one of a string of little or no budget remakes by filmmaker Larry Buchanan for AIP. IN THE YEAR 2889 is a remake of Roger Corman's THE END OF THE WORLD(1956). A stick in the mud retired Navy Captain John Ramsey(Neil Fletcher)and his daughter Joanna(Charla Doherty)survive a nuclear disaster in their built specially for the occasion home in the bottom of a canyon. With very little food to thrive on an array of uninvited guests drop in for shelter. A chain smoking young man Steve(Paul Peterson)and his brother Granger(Max Anderson)arrive first. Granger has already become a radioactive mutant. Soon arrives a stripper(Quinn O'Hara)and her sleazy manager Mickey(Hugh Feagin). Oddly enough the next to appear is an alcoholic farmer Tim(Bill Thurman). This strange collection of folks are not only in fear of radioactive fallout; but also the raw meat eating mutants like Granger that keeps coming closer and closer to the house. Lust, drunkenness and murder are interrupted when fresh rain falls and saves Joanna from a telepathic mutant that has carried her off to the woods. Will this rainfall be mankind's salvation? The mutant(in an awkward rubber mask)is played by Byron Lord.

Best watched with the volume off. Add your own cheesy dialogue and have a party. This movie brings some questions to mind: 1> Do the laws of man and God change in post nuclear life? 2> Does being irradiated cause you to get cranky, smear white paint on the side of your face and demand raw meat? 3> Where do irradiated mutant cannibalistic humanoids shop for business suits? 4> How many times can a made up word be used in a single movie? (Remshens?) I am sure they are referencing REMS r(oentgen) e(quivalent in) m(an)

All in all it's a worth a watch at least once, just for the humor factor of it all.

Don't be fooled by the title: this movie is anchored in the present(1960s, Dallas,Texas).The director/auteur, Larry Buchanan, can best be described as a minor league George Romero. However, I think this film has merit and should not be dismissed so easily. The opening shot reveals the inside of the cockpit of the bomber that drops the nuclear bomb. The subsequent mushroom cloud and rolling cloud formations over majestic mountains are well lensed. The basic story concept is fine and ripe for exploring. Paul Peterson and the chick who plays the go-go dancer are competent thespians. The gent who plays the radioactive brother of Peterson is appropriately creepy. I also like the old captain's regret when he breaks Timothy's jug of whiskey after a evening of partying. He tells Peterson the next morning that he was unaware of the degree of Timothy's alcoholism. Groundbreaking and insightful for a Sci-Fi script of the Sixties. Show this movie to the young ones and remind them how movies of the past used imagination over special effects.

Did you know that "prevailing winds and updrafts" are enough to keep radioactive fallout (not to mention nuclear winter, earthquakes, firestorms, tsunamis and stray MIRV warheads) from devastating your isolated country estate, no matter how many megatons of nuclear weapons were dropped? Did you know that all you have to do is wait 'several months' on your isolated estate and everything will be OK? I certainly didn't know that, but this movie provided me with a valuable public service!

"In the Year 2889" enjoyed a brief revival a while back when some cable movie program director (Encore's "Action" or "Mystery"?) apparently lost his or her mind and showed this for a couple of weeks. I had never heard of it before, so when I saw the title on the program guide, and realized I was just in time to catch the beginning of the movie, I jumped over to the relevant channel to see what it was about.

Less than 90 seconds later, gagging and sputtering, I jumped BACK to the program guide, saying "WOT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP?!?!?!?" or words to that effect. The expanded information on the program guide informed me that the movie was directed by...gag...Larry Buchanan. Well, that explained it. I should have known.

I never saw Corman's "Day the World Ended" or whatever it is, so I didn't realize at the time that this movie was essentially a scene for scene (even line for line) remake of his venerable clunker. But it makes no real difference. The fact that Buchanan and the film's producers decided to title it "In The Year 2889", a date over 800 years in the future, and then set the movie in a modern day home, with the actors in in contemporary clothing styles and speaking very contemporary patois, tells you every thing you need to know about the shabbiness,incompetence, and half-baked sloppiness that went into the making of this film. And of course, there IS no acting to speak of here, only human marionettes trying to remember their lines and hit their marks so they can say those lines.

Oh my Lord, this is bad. It's not just a Bad Movie...it's an ANTI-movie. "The Astounding She Creature" and "Giant Spider Invasion" are like heavenly pearls of cinematic joy compared to this inert, inept, inane pile of cinematic DRECK. Herschel Gordon Lewis is snickering and pointing at this from Beyond The Grave. Ed Wood Jr. in his darkest days wouldn't have allowed this to be released with his name on it.

If you are a fan of the Corman original, watch that instead . Stay far, far away from this movie. It will hurt you in a way that you've never been hurt before.

You have been warned.

All in all, it wasn't as bad as many people think - that is if you have a sense of humor. I picked up a DVD of it at the dollar store - hey, expense is no barrier for me. No, it isn't award winning, but I don't consider it a waste of time if you watch it with a light hearted attitude in mind. I think it was made that way, the director must have certainly had humor in mind, otherwise...? I don't think it is fair to pick on the actors. They actually did a fairly good job considering the awful writing and directing that they were working under. If you want to see bad acting, just turn on one of today's soap operas - or should I say over-acting. We have to remember that the actors are following the director's directions and the script. The only actor who was truly not that good was the fellow who played Mickey. The old fellow, Neil Fletcher, did a decent enough job and so did Paul Peterson and the female lead Charla Doherty. In fact she may have been the best actor amongst them all. The monster in the woods was a big joke I will agree. The thing we have to remember when watching this movie folks, is that it was made cheaply and written at a time when we didn't know as much about atomic effects and imagination was running wild everywhere. So by all means, if you see a DVD or VHS of this movie take it home and watch it. Leave any cynicism in another room, don't blame the actors for what they had to work with, and just have fun viewing it.