In the Year 2889 (1969)

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

About three minutes into "In the Year 2889" viewed on you tube, I thought to myself, this seems familiar. Ten minutes into it, I knew I had seen it before, In fact, it resembled one of the pivotal horror films of my youth, a film that I had seen at the age of seven, and had found myself fascinated by how terrifying a movie could be, and how addictive the craving to be scared. The original movie, released in 1956, in black and white, was a classic by Roger Corman. The Day the World Ended. It was eerie, the monster was horrendous but was only seen in smoke and shadows till the end. The plot dealing with a small group who had survived some atomic Holocaust,now faced perils undreamed of in a post nuclear world. Those who called the original feature cheesy, could not see it with the innocent eyes of youth, the direction, action and photography and music were actually pretty good. If you had not seen the original, This version would still hold up (barely), in spite of poor cutting, average acting, and poor production values. The rubber face monster carries no fear, quite the opposite! The only reason this film holds up as well as it does, is because it was filmed with the same script as the original. There were a few changes made, but nothing significant. The lead actors tried their best, the "bad guy" in this version could not pull off the character. If you gave a good script to a mediocre director, and said, make this film with no budget, and no imagination, but follow the script; the results would most likely look like this. I promised a spoiler, Warning ! The date used in the title has absolutely nothing to do with this picture, but there is an interesting back story on IMDb. There must have been some interesting legal battles going on, to explain why Corman would allow his material to be rehashed.

This is an amusing movie if only because it is so bad. The Geiger counter sound effect is just crinkling paper. The night time shots are done with a slight blue filter, but you can still see plain daylight. Just to make sure you don't get confused, though, a very loud soundtrack of crickets is played. The most interesting part of the movie is the luger with the 30-round clip. The understanding of radioactivity is laughable. The monster is wonderfully bad. I also enjoyed how people who are living in the aftermath of world destruction seem to be obsessed with the swimming pool and bikinis. But what the heck, break out the popcorn, your favorite intoxicating beverage, and enjoy the badness of this movie!

*Spoiler/plot- In the year 2889, 1967. A small family has a special rural home and provisions to survive after a nuclear war. After a nuclear war incident the home and family are faced with coping with new people and problems that threaten their survival.*Special Stars- Paul Peterson.*Theme- Teamwork and planning can overcome problems.*Trivia/location/goofs- Remake of a previous good film, 'The Day the World Ended'.*Emotion- I did not enjoy this film after seeing it's original one, 'The Day the World Ended'. The roles and casting were updated from the original film shot in the early 50's to late 60's casting; the stripper became a dancer, the hood became the dancer's manager, the prospector became a local cattleman and so on. As such, the character's were less interesting and therefore boring.*Based On- A Jules Verne short story of the same title.

I guess this is what it would be like if decided to watch TV static for 80mins… yep the no-budget post-nuclear 'In the Year 2889' is a gruelling experience it utterly doomed boredom. Well at least TV static would be consistent. It's a film that only wants to talk and preach, but really has nothing good or interesting to say. Sure some things coming out of the actors mouth sound important (scientific theories and discussions "that you first got to understand"… what's there to understand?), but more often it's gratingly blunt and stupid. Everyone seems senseless to ever-growing threat of their own friction and of the unknowns of the atomic aftermaths. But strangely they get those feelings when something isn't right. The light-weight melodramatic story is a basement-bargain rehash of Roger Corman's "The Day the World Ended.", but only much slower (sloth-like), talky and aimless with an atrociously dud ending. The radioactive side-effects; laughter or sleepiness… and I lean more towards the latter affecting those experiencing this apocalyptic train-wreck. Director Larry Buchanan languidly no-frills direction is wooden all-round with no sense of pacing, tension and atmosphere. The isolated woodland locations keep it moody though. That humming zing-dinger score only hurts than complements. Camera-work is colourlessly beat-up, while let's not go near those crustily botched (but in-character) make-up effects of the mutants. A state of the art rubber mask... plus I'll throw in free claws. Gee just writing about it, is making me dose off. The alluring Quinn O'Hara (who nicely fills out a two piece) was the only performance (not a perfect one) in the cast who didn't fade and kicked up some spunk. Neil Fletcher's know-all character rubs you up the wrong way, and the two young stars Paul Petersen and Charla Doherty are stiltedly poor. An unimaginatively laboured and vapid foray.