In the Year 2889

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.

A group of obnoxious survivors of a nuclear holocaust are protected in a house in a valley surrounded by lead hills. They have to wait there for a few months until it's safe to go out again. Naturally they start to get on each others nerves...and how about the "horrible" creatures that are roaming the forest just outside the house?

Larry Buchanan is a god to bad film fans (like me). He's ALMOST as bad as Ed Wood Jr.! Basically, his films suck. They're made on no budget, with unknowns and incredibly cheap production values. This one is easily one of his "best".

Let's start with the jaw-droppingly stupid assumption that, after a nuclear holocaust, it will just take a few months for everything to be fine! And don't get me started on the lead hills! The script is just dreadful--almost bad enough to be good. The lines are just stunningly stupid. A few times I had to replay the tape because I couldn't believe those lines were actually uttered! As for the acting---hoo boy! Only Paul Petersen showed any bit of talent--the rest were truly dreadful. And what's with the sound? It all sounds like bad post-production recording--some of the voices don't even match the "actors"! And the "horrifying" creature was uproariously funny! It's some idiot in a stupid bargain-basement Halloween mask with a fright wig, silly fangs and (supposedly) steel claws!!!! You watch in amazement at this.

I'm probably making this sound better than it is...it's actually pretty dull. VERY dull. Not worth wasting your time at all. Not bad-good just BAD!!!

And some cable TV stations have mistakenly given this an NC-17 rating! It's PG all the way.

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.

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.

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.