In the Year 2889

2889 used to appear regularly on one of our local syndicates in the Seventies. Those who need their memories' jogged will perhaps remember the image of the mutated monster with snow white clown hair and piranha-like pearly whites stalked the woods in search of sustenance (raw meat).

Summary:

It is 1966, title notwithstanding.

A motley band of survivors of a nuclear holocaust struggle to keep from killing/kissing one another faced with a shortage of food, fresh water and alcohol. Captain John, an retired navy officer, and survivalist's valley home is situated as to be fall-out resistant. With food enough for he and his daughter, an unwelcomed crew of interlopers threaten the Captain's post-apocalyptic paradise. A stripper and her manager/boyfriend, an athletic (though chain-smoking) heart-throb and his radioactive brother, and a perpetually sweat-drenched drunk round out the cast of stragglers.

The threat of irradiated rain, mutated humans and animals, and man's inhumanity fail to raise an ounce of horror or suspense in the year 2889. But they do get big laughs.

I doubt a print still exists of this forgotten "Z movie." I'm not sure whether to give "In the Year 2889" a 1 or a 10. As a comedy, like "Plan 9" it is quite an effort. As a drama, which is I suppose what it was meant to be, well, you know. They don't make 'em like this anymore that's for certain Though, I must admit, after seeing the Alien Factor (1977) I'm not too sure.

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.

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.

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.

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.