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.

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.

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.

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.

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.