In the Year 2889

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.

I rate "1", movies which are so awful that the actors seemingly know it; and "2", awful films wherein the actors seem to be still tryin'. So this gets a "2" from me. Sometimes I reach the "total loser" conclusion and point to the inferior sound and/or lighting in the mix. But even though those elements are adequate here, this misfortune accomplishes "sheer mess" status by virtue of nothing more than most of the cast, and, the extreme unbelievability of the unfolding developments. And - oh yeah - I WILL say that some of the dialogue was noticeably re-recorded AFTER the action; "noticeable", for example, as one character incongruously exhales a giggle, simultaneous with his swallowing moonshine from a jug. In a nutshell, the plot consists of a retiree and his daughter butting heads with a quintet of visitors on the day after a series of nuclear bombs have wiped out the rest of humanity. (THEY are not effected because of the strong updrafts in their neighborhood.) My only other storyline sentence refers to the contradictoriness of much of what follows; contrived, it seems, as we go along; not thought-out. It's one of those classic, head-shaking, shoulder-shruggers which makes you smile because it's so ridiculous.

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.

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.

It's been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If that's true, then Roger Corman must feel very flattered. AIP's 1967 "In The Year 2889" is an almost word-for-word remake of Corman's campy 1956 "The Day The World Ended" only with - would you believe? - worse acting, worse direction, worse editing, and a Halloween mask monster. Larry Buchanan did such a terrible job with this neutron bomb of a movie that it's almost painful to sit through. On the other hand, the house is nicer and it was shot in color. Paul Petersen reprises the role of Steve, originally played by Richard Denning, but is so wooden in some scenes that it's hard to believe that this is the same guy who performed so well on "The Donna Reed Show". Incidentally, we have nothing against Mr. Petersen who, after being dumped on by Hollywood, went on to found "A Minor Affair", a very worthwhile organization to aid other child stars. But, back to the movie: we had an uncle who was a wine taster, and he once said that if you took excrement, put it in a bottle with a nice label, aged it for ten years, when you uncorked it you'd still have excrement. Corman's original film might have been junk, but at least it was entertaining junk, and Paul Blaisdell's monster was, if nothing else, imaginative. The "monster" in this film is so unimpressive that it's hard to describe, unless you've seen "Fire Maidens of Outer Space" which, on reflection, compares well with this loser, having about the same production values. In short, no matter how starved you may be for entertainment, don't even consider watching this awful, awful movie.