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.

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.

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.

Okay, can we now take Edward D. Wood Jr off that pedestle he has been placed on by retrophiles and acknowledge there are other directors out there whose films fall into the So-Bad-They're-Memorable category? Such a director is the one I am here to talk about, submitted for your approval Mr. Larry Buchanan. Now on this board we have to review one movie at a time so this is as good a place as any to start, especially since IN THE YEAR 2889 just resurfaced on DVD. Larry was hired to remake four of American-International's B movies from the 1950's to be released stright to television. This is his do-over of THE DAY WORLD ENDED (1957). Former child star Paul Peterson plays the Richard Denning role and Charly Doherty fills in for Lori Nelson. The movie begins one day after a nuclear war has wiped out most of the world (but I guess THE DAY AFTER THE WORLD ENDED would have been a silly title, right?) but not necessarily as far in the future as 2889. If you have seen the original you already know the plot. Despite being given only a $20K budget Larry puts his own stamp on the film to make it more than just a remake. It was only hinted at in the original that the mutant prowling around the house was Lori Nelson's brother. In this movie it is spelled out for us in block letters. The one eyed, fanged, claw handed beast is even wearing the remains of a business suit! A rubber mask fills in for Paul Blaisdell's original concept. Not impressive really but it sure saved money. Notice how the "lake" Ms. Doherty and Quinn O'Hara go swimming in is bordered on one side by a brick wall. Also Larry's infamous "night shots" in broad daylight are in abundance. Notice also how we are supposed to go to freeze frame for the final shot in the movie but thrifty Larry saved a lab cost by just having the actors freeze in mid-motion! You may also want to check out THE EYE CREATURES, Larry's remake of INVASION OF THE SAUCERMEN; ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS (IT CONQUERED THE WORLD); and CREATURE OF DESTRUCTION (THE SHE CREATURE). For the sake of your own mental health I suggest you not watch them all in one day.

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.