User reviews

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.

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.

Did you know that "prevailing winds and updrafts" are enough to keep radioactive fallout (not to mention nuclear winter, earthquakes, firestorms, tsunamis and stray MIRV warheads) from devastating your isolated country estate, no matter how many megatons of nuclear weapons were dropped? Did you know that all you have to do is wait 'several months' on your isolated estate and everything will be OK? I certainly didn't know that, but this movie provided me with a valuable public service!

"In the Year 2889" enjoyed a brief revival a while back when some cable movie program director (Encore's "Action" or "Mystery"?) apparently lost his or her mind and showed this for a couple of weeks. I had never heard of it before, so when I saw the title on the program guide, and realized I was just in time to catch the beginning of the movie, I jumped over to the relevant channel to see what it was about.

Less than 90 seconds later, gagging and sputtering, I jumped BACK to the program guide, saying "WOT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP?!?!?!?" or words to that effect. The expanded information on the program guide informed me that the movie was directed by...gag...Larry Buchanan. Well, that explained it. I should have known.

I never saw Corman's "Day the World Ended" or whatever it is, so I didn't realize at the time that this movie was essentially a scene for scene (even line for line) remake of his venerable clunker. But it makes no real difference. The fact that Buchanan and the film's producers decided to title it "In The Year 2889", a date over 800 years in the future, and then set the movie in a modern day home, with the actors in in contemporary clothing styles and speaking very contemporary patois, tells you every thing you need to know about the shabbiness,incompetence, and half-baked sloppiness that went into the making of this film. And of course, there IS no acting to speak of here, only human marionettes trying to remember their lines and hit their marks so they can say those lines.

Oh my Lord, this is bad. It's not just a Bad Movie...it's an ANTI-movie. "The Astounding She Creature" and "Giant Spider Invasion" are like heavenly pearls of cinematic joy compared to this inert, inept, inane pile of cinematic DRECK. Herschel Gordon Lewis is snickering and pointing at this from Beyond The Grave. Ed Wood Jr. in his darkest days wouldn't have allowed this to be released with his name on it.

If you are a fan of the Corman original, watch that instead . Stay far, far away from this movie. It will hurt you in a way that you've never been hurt before.

You have been warned.

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 had the misfortune to buy this film in a video sale, and then wasted an evening watching it. As a Science Fiction/Horror film the plot has more holes in it than a Gruyere cheese, and even for a very low cost movie it should have been possible to somehow indicate that technology might have advanced slightly by the year 2889. In addition the acting was like Birnham Wood on a bad day and the dialog as sparkling as distilled water. I am a fan of movies which could be classed as 'so bad they are good' like Ed Wood's, but this is 'so bad its unwatchable' like "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"

Avoid at all costs

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.

Thanks to the cable television movie service provided by the Encore group, including the Action Channel and The Western Channel, those of us who subscribe to the Behemoth Comcast and who truly cannot sleep at night ... were treated to multiple showings of In the Year 2889, recently. Treated is a good word.

Because after seeing this incredible bit of cinematic flotsam and jetsam, I felt like I needed 'treatment.'

There must be a name in science for the psychological disorder which causes a normal person to arise in the middle of the night and watch bad Science Fiction on cable !! Truly, if I didn't need 'treatment' for it before watching "2889," I sure needed it afterwords.

At least the colors in the film as shown were true. Everything else, absolutely everything else about the movie was simply ABOMINABLE.

Well, Charla has a very fine female form, which is semi-revealed for about twenty seconds in an otherwise meaningless swimming pool scene.

This has all the virtues of a movie made by people who were bored one week-end and found a camera and a lot of extra film which needed exposing, and lowered themselves to the task.

Apparently the beaches and the liquor stores were all closed that week-end, for nothing else accounts for the decision somebody made to say, "ACTION," and beginning shooting film. There is no way to comment on the director's skills for there doesn't seem to be any direction in evidence. Once upon a time I thought the worst movie ever made was something done by Andy Warhol or one of his confederates, where they just rolled film on the outside of a skyscraper, slowly panning up the building for hour after hour.

By contrast to "2889", watching that movie was truly exciting.

Honest. I wouldn't kid you about something this serious.

Back in '71 and '72, the local one-lung independent TV station I grew up watching subsisted on a weekend schedule of AWA pro wrestling, Milwaukee Brewers or Bucks games, "Roller Game of the Week" (the L.A. T-Birds version) and every American International film ever released to television syndication. This was one of those movies. Essentially a colour updating of THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED (which was also frequently run on that station, once right before this very picture), IN THE YEAR 2889 covers pretty much the same territory as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (produced around the same time), except that it's a nuclear holocaust the housebound survivors are trying to live down rather than zombies. Paul Petersen gives a fairly good performance of what they handed him here. Look for it in one of those super-cheap DVD boxes of 10 or 20 movies on the same theme that the Brentwood label puts out.

In a post nuclear Earth, survivors are hold up in a valley and have to protect themselves from mutant human beings, and each other in some cases.

An AIP film from the 70s. That might just be enough to tell you what you are going to get.

Stock footage.

Bad voice over.

Horrible direction.

Bad acting.

And whoever did the sound should be drummed out of the union.

Everyone echoes throughout the entire movie!!

The story of In the Year 2889 is your standard bad b-movie plot about the end of the world, except there is not a single thing done to make the world look futuristic. I would grant that they managed to pull off a thick, muggy version of the early 70s, so I guess they achieved a few years of a futuristic look, but it's more likely that I just can't tell the difference between 1967 and, say, 1972 or so.

The movie is an exercise in ham-handed and clunky story-telling. The sound dubbing is amazingly bad and doesn't even begin to match the action on screen, but no matter. Clearly this is a no-budget production so things like this must be forgiven. Or at least excused. The characters are in a fallout shelter, and wouldn't you just know it, it comes complete with a detailed miniature model of the house and surrounding area so that the inhabitants, mostly people who live in the area, can be informed about how the surrounding mountains will protect them from the radioactive fallout.

You see, the mountains are filled with lead, so any radioactivity will pass harmlessly over their heads like radio waves. Pretty convenient, although there is some concern because rain would swiftly deliver nuclear death. There is meant to be some tension about the rising radioactivity in the air, except that any exterior scenes never look like anything other than a beautiful sunny day.

So there is this thing about the radioactivity passing overhead and totally changing the world around them, but soon enough they are just fraternizing and grab-assing in the bomb shelter, and before you know it, the old man is instructing all the women, including his own daughter, that they must all bear children ASAP! What a guy!

Overall this is basically zero-budget nonsense. There is a title that says "The Beginning" when the movie ends, and this might be the most clever thing in the movie, so I'll let you do the math. It might have been fun had it been made as a student film or something, but the amazingly bad costumes and performances just don't belong in a commercial film meant for public viewing.

Even without a nuclear holocaust which annihilates most of the world's population from what little we see of the valley estate that Neil Fletcher has built nothing seems to have changed for 800+ plus year in 2889. Why the title? This could have been 1972 for all we see.

Fletcher is the ultimate survivalist and he's got a compound for himself and daughter Charla Doherty and her fiancé who never shows up. But some others do and no one would pick this bunch to reboot the human race.

With the possible exception of Paul Petersen who was now out of work after leaving the Donna Reed Show where he was king of teen idols in the early to middle 60s on television. Like so many other careers Petersen's tanked after his television show ended its run. I well remember him from my youth he was a lot like Tom Cruise. And maybe had he come along a generation later he might have had the career Cruise has had. Petersen is the hero here and is the best hope for survival with this crew.

In The Year 2889 doesn't even bother to pretend it wasn't totally ripped off from Roger Corman's The Day The World Ended. If you're familiar with that you know what happens here.

Terrible acting, completely plagiarized and production values that are better in a Film 101 class, what's to like here besides Paul Petersen's hunkiness.

A nuclear holocaust kills three billion people on Earth. Managing to survive the aftermath are beautiful Charla Doherty (as Joanna Ramsey) and her father Neil Fletcher (as John Ramsey). The two look exceptionally well, considering the state of the planet. They are quickly joined by handsome Paul Peterson (as Steve Morrow) and his radioactive brother Hugh Feagin (as Granger Morrow). While they worry about supplies, two more people arrive - sexy red-haired Quinn O'Hara (as Jada) and her companion Max Anderson (as Mickey Brown). That night, boozy ranger Billy Thurman (as Tim Henderson) joins the survivors...

The group is alive due to Mr. Fletcher's positioning of his home near a combination of cliffs and a lake, which have protected it from nuclear effects. Fresh from his long run on "The Donna Reed Show" (1958-1966), Mr. Peterson is attracted to Ms. Doherty. Her father urges the two younger couples to re-populate the planet. Everyone is threatened when Mr. Feagin begins to recover, revealing himself as part of a horrifying mutant future. A threat from within is posed by Mr. Alexander. Peterson smokes several cigarettes, contrasting his otherwise clean-cut image. "Larry" performs exceptionally well throughout.

** In the Year 2889 (1967) Larry Buchanan ~ Paul Peterson, Charla Doherty, Quinn O'Hara, Neil Fletcher

What a horrible movie. After watching it I can understand Paul Peterson's bitterness toward Hollywood. How on Earth did he get hooked up with this production? Frankly I never thought all that much of him as Jeff on The Donna Reed Show or anything else he ever did - he always seems to be playing the role of "Paul Peterson" no matter what role he's in, simply a poor actor - but even HE didn't deserve to be in this piece of dung. The story is ridiculous, the script is abysmal, and other than the color film and processing I think it cost about $100 total to make. When Paul Peterson is actually the high point of a movie, it's ba-a-a-d. Ah yes, good ol' Paul in his khaki slacks and velour turtleneck, one wonders when Donna Reed might turn up.

When one of the main characters realizes that Peterson's character and a young lady may be the only people left on Earth to have children and rebuild the population, he notes that it being an emergency, a ship's captain could marry them so they could start making babies. With nearly the whole planet wiped out, someone is going to care if they get married? What are they going to do, cheat on each other? Hoo boy.

I like bad movies when they're so bad they're funny, but this one just stinks.

In the Year 2889: 2 out of 10: Great now I can't get that damn song out of my head. (No it doesn't appear on the soundtrack. Cope to think of it I'm not sure if this film even has a soundtrack.) First of all the characters all dress and look like extras in the Zapruder film so I'm not sure where this whole year 2889 comes from.

Oh yeah The earth was destroyed by nuclear radiation except this one house with three months worth of food for three people but then an extra guy shows up with an alcoholic stripper.

Personally if the earth is destroyed by nuclear bombs I'm rooting for the alcoholic stripper to show up. (Heck who am I kidding I'm always rooting for the alcoholic stripper nuclear radioactive fallout or not).

Very talky with some okay performances and silly monsters it is another Buchanan TV remake but better than his usual fair. More time wasting curiosity than anything mistaken for entertainment.

OK folks - by now, anyone having purchased this gem, most likely did so at one of those everything's a dollar places as a double feature. Cecil B. DeMille it ain't - but surely that's why we gambled the buck - right? I have been looking for this movie since 1970 when I first saw it as a child on "Project Terror" in San Antonio. It scared the complete pants off me. Since that time, and because of my deep seated longing for the innocence of the days of local T.V. horror hosts, I have eagerly sought out all movies that fit in to the Horrific Le Bad Cinema category. Judging this film by those standards, one must give this classic example of a complete waste of perfectly good celluloid, a perfect score. I highly recommend this film - not for your own Mystery Science Theater get togethers - but for the sheer challenge of enduring it "as is" and further widening the palate of your taste for the truly awful.I feel confident that even Mr.Leonard Pinth-Garnell would shed a tear of deeply significant poignancy.