In the Year 2889 (1969 TV Movie) User Reviews

Another Buchanan classic!

[rosscinema · 3/10 · 30 December 2003]

Here we go! Its Larry Buchanan and this is another incredibly inept film that is fascinating to watch for the same reason. Story is about survivors after a nuclear bomb has put an end to the world but a few people did survive because they were in a canyon that lies below the radiation mists that hover at the top of the hills. At the bottom of the canyon is a home that is owned by a retired Navy Officer named Captain John Ramsey (Neil Fletcher) and his daughter Joanna (Charla Doherty). They have enough food for just the two of them but suddenly they get unwanted guests like Steve (Paul Petersen) and his brother Granger (Max W. Anderson) who has been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation and scarred. Then a sleazeball named Mickey (Hugh Feagin) and his stripper girlfriend Jada (Quinn O'Hara) bust in and Joanna pleads with her father that they just can't send them away. The next day Tim (Bill Thurman) who is a ranch farmer from over the hill stumbles in and they are forced to allow him to stay. John proclaims himself in charge of the group and that Steve is second in charge and he will decide how much to eat everyday. John has guns and the key to the store room where all the food is kept. John and Steve notice tracks around their property and they figure out that certain creatures have survived the bomb but have become mutated monsters that feed on raw meat!

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Mickey is in love with Joanna and keeps hitting on her but she and Steve have become romantic. Jada tells Joanna to watch out for Mickey because he's her man. Mickey keeps trying to get John's gun so he can take over and have Joanna all to himself but John has decided to act like the Captain of the ship and marry his daughter to Steve.

Just like all of Buchanan's films this is technically a disaster and one of the things that stand out is the bad sound and editing. The Radiation Meter makes a strange noise that sounds like some kid stuffing popcorn in his mouth. Also, in at least two scenes their is a very quick cut to another scene in mid-verse. Just as a character is speaking the scene quickly ends and we never hear the end of the sentence! The mutant that lumbers around in this film suspiciously looks like the monster in another Buchanan classic called "It's Alive". Its probably the same mask and make-up and one of the other mutants has a ping-pong ball on one side of his face. Neil Fletcher is a Buchanan regular and so is big Bill Thurman, you can't have a film directed by Buchanan without big Bill having a role. Doherty was in "Village of the Giants" and she never had much of an acting career after this. One of the funny things in this film is the character John. Talk about illusions of grandeur! One of the first things he tells Steve is that he should kill his brother. Then he says he won't bother feeding him since he'll probably die anyway. He even tells his daughter that he will marry her off like a sea Captain and tells Steve that she should have kids as fast as she can. Finally he tells Steve that he should kill Mickey since he's trouble. One guy was making all of these life and death decisions, I guess he didn't want to consult with the others on anything. And you can't help but notice that it's suppose to be 2889 but they still dress like its the 60's. So much for progress! I have to say that I love Buchanan's films for all of their low budget silliness and cheesy dialogue and waiting for Thurman to make his appearance. He makes the best he can with practically no budget and the end result is usually unintentional laughs. I can't wait to see more of his films!

look out!!! bombs away!!!

[KDWms · 2/10 · 1 November 2003]

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.

Not just bad, but also rather boring

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 26 December 2008]

This is a very low budget remake of THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED--a film about a tiny group who have somehow survived nuclear annihilation. Considering that it was made by Larry Buchanan, it's no surprise that the film not only stinks but is rather boring. This is the same guy who managed to make MARS NEEDS WOMEN dull--and which a title like this, how could you possibly make it dull?! This is the same director who is seldom mentioned in the pantheon of bad directors but should--producing films that even Ed Wood would be ashamed of making!!

The film begins just after a worldwide nuclear war. Practically everyone is dead but a small oasis of life exists all thanks to an explanation that really never made any sense. But, the old guy who explains it all seems to know what he's talking about, as he's got provisions and plans on surviving along with his daughter. However, several survivors straggle in as well as there just isn't enough food for them all AND a couple of the survivors are obvious scum--so obvious that you wonder why anyone would bother to save them! Well, with the help of one of the 'nice' survivors (Paul Peterson from "The Donna Reed Show"), they do their best to conserve the food and fight against mutants (why are there ALWAYS mutants?).

Despite mutants and nuclear war and a stripper and her evil (and horny) boyfriend, Buchanan manages to make a film that seems about 20 minutes too long. The pacing is like lead and the film is so cheaply made that there really are never any thrills or excitement. While not among the very worst films I have seen, it's definitely close and only of interest to bad movie fans.

This film was recently released along with another Buchanan 'classic'--IT'S ALIVE. Both are excruciatingly terrible films, but somehow IT'S ALIVE manages to provide a small amount of entertainment--something IN THE YEAR 2889 never even comes close to doing.

Larry Buchanan, an Ed Wood for the 1970's.

[reptilicus · 22 June 2003]

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.

A Larry Buchanan classic! That's NOT a good thing!

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 15 April 2004]

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.

A bad movie lover's treasure. They don't make 'em like that anymore

[colossus-4 · 1/10 · 11 March 1999]

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.

Astonishingly poor in every single aspect - makes "Eye Creatures" look like "Citizen Kane"

[lemon_magic · 1/10 · 7 August 2005]

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.

No redeeming features

[wigley · 1/10 · 19 August 2003]

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

How deep into the future will mankind go?

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 21 September 2004]

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.

One of the dullest & least enjoyable end-of-the-world movies ever made

[Woodyanders · 2/10 · 25 March 2006]

In the mid-60's notoriously ill-regarded Grade Z exploitation feature hack Larry Buchanan made a handful of uniformly awful films -- "The Eye Creatures," "It's Alive," and this thuddingly dismal dud among 'em -- under the auspices of the legendary B-movie grindhouse studio American International Pictures. These flicks were so bad that AIP deemed them unworthy of theatrical releases and instead tossed them away as strictly direct-to-television fare, where these clinkers have since become firmly established as perennial late night cathode ray timekiller fodder.

This is Larry's typically lousy $1.98 remake of Roger Corman's admittedly cheap, but still hugely enjoyable sci-fi doomsday classic "The Day the World Ended." The basic premise remains the same: A motley assortment of people who are unscathed by a lethal nuclear blast hole up in a remote mountainside redoubt run by a hard-nosed survivalist. They quarrel and squabble with each other until a disfigured telepathic cannibal mutant finally attacks the shelter in the last reel. Harold Hoffman's drab, talky, studiously by-the-numbers trite script doesn't offer any fresh, compelling imaginative twists on the original, thus relegating this turkey to tepid Rehash City Snoozeville from cruddy start to dreary end. Moreover, Buchanan's lifeless direction fails abysmally to create either tension or momentum, allowing a stultifying surplus of tedious talk to bring the already leaden pace to a grindingly torpid snail-like clip. Robert C. Jessup's ratty, all-beat-to-unsightly-hell cinematography, the watery, tunelessly droning stock film library score, dreadfully unconvincing make-up (the mutant looks like some wizened old guy with a severe sunburn and a glowing white fright wig), an irritatingly preachy and heavy-handed Christian morality, and the largely wooden acting (only the always dependable Bill Thurman as a crusty old alcoholic rancher adds any much-needed vitality to the staggeringly static proceedings) certainly don't help matters any as well. Overall, this insufferably atrocious wash-out sadly rates as one of the all-time worst and most dissatisfying end-of-the-world sci-fi losers to ever limp its crappy way onto celluloid.

Thanks To The Encore Group, It Lives

[[e-mail] · 1/10 · 24 November 2003]

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.

As cinematic cheese goes, this is some great aged brick...

[kingdaevid · 9/10 · 24 May 2004]

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.

The Day the World Ended over again

[chris_gaskin123 · 7/10 · 22 November 2005]

In the Year 2889 is more or less a remake of Roger Corman's The Day the World Ended, which was made in 1956. The characters are different in this though, notably their names.

After a nuclear war, a widowed dad and his daughter whose home is in a valley which is shielded from the radiation from the bombs are joined by a motley collection of people consisting of two brothers, with the older one mutating due to radiation and also a boozy rancher, a crook and his girlfriend. There is also a rather ugly mutant out there who has taken a shining to the dad's daughter but at the end when the rains come, he dies due to the water, which is now clear.

The ending to this is very different to The Day the World Ended, with the dad presumed to be surviving where he dies in the other.

The cast is mostly made up of unknowns with Neil Fletcher as the head of the household, Captain Ramsey.

I quite enjoyed this. Check it out if you get the chance.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Zzzzzzzzz

[Anonymous_Maxine · 2/10 · 10 November 2008]

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.

Well, the world's destroyed. Last one in the pool's a rotten egg!

[Poseidon-3 · 6 February 2007]

Despite the film's title, in the year 1967, a nuclear holocaust erupts, leaving a young lady (Doherty) and her retired naval officer father Fletcher in one of the very few unaffected areas of the U.S. It seems Fletcher had been prepping for the big day and deliberately built his home in a valley that is surrounded by lead and has an updraft that prevents radiation from falling on them. What he didn't foresee was the endless parade of interlopers who keep knocking on the door! He is reluctant to let them in but Doherty is either lonely, since her fiancé was lost in the destruction, or otherwise feels obligated to take the others in. This despite the fact that the strangers include a common thug (Feagin), his stripper girlfriend (O'Hara), a local drunk (Thurman), a chain-smoking young man (Peterson) and his radiation-drenched brother (Anderson)! The seven, seemingly sole survivors on earth, set up housekeeping at Fletcher's pad, but have trouble getting along and also frequently fret about whether it will rain or not, thus dousing them with deadly radiation. Fletcher waddles around with a detector, checking to make sure everything is under 50. As the static, trite (this was based on a 1955 film script called "The Day the World Ended") film continues, Peterson, who hasn't brought a change of clothes but seems to have brought a year's supply of Lucky Strikes, and Fletcher speculate about their fate and, fortunately for the male audience members, open up the pool so that the ladies can have a swim! Sadly, there's a hideous deformed mutant living in the woods who likes to watch them. Also, Anderson becomes increasingly odd, craving raw meat and lurching around the woods in search of it. The personal relationships begin to unravel just as the mutant decides to start killing people, but, predictably, there is still an Adam and Eve left at the end. Former child-star Peterson gives a stilted, dull, expressionless performance in the film. He wouldn't move much at all if it weren't for his nonstop cigarette smoking. What's sad is that he is one of the better actors! O'Hara adds some much-needed pulchritude and zip to this bland affair and Doherty isn't too bad, though she's a far cry from her role as a wise-cracking preteen in "Take Her, She's Mine." The badge of acting dishonor has to go to the sleep-inducing awfulness of Fletcher, who is given far too much to say and do in the film. His type should always be relegated to a supporting role. Anderson is actually quite ruggedly-handsome if not for his radiation scars and his penchant for going out in the woods to eat animals raw! It's a tacky, $4.13 production with occasional unintentional laughs, but not enough of them to warrant sitting through it.

Horrible

[arfdawg-1 · 2/10 · 3 April 2014]

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!!

"You can't stay here, it isn't the way I planned it."

[classicsoncall · 2/10 · 5 February 2006]

With one viewing, this movie crashes into my Top 10 Worst Films of All Time, and not without good reason. The dialog, if you can pay attention that long, is absolutely the worst from a cast of characters that obviously must not have known what they were getting into. Sadly, there's not one redeeming feature to the film, unless you consider the almost sensible explanation why a mountaintop home ringed on three sides by lead bearing ore cliffs might protect it's inhabitants from the effects of a nuclear war that's destroyed the rest of the world. Updrafts of air from the warm lake nearby carries radiation fallout away from the area, so stunning a concept that it's mentioned at least three times.

Captain John Ramsey (Neil Fletcher) is the self appointed survivalist calling the shots for the entire human race, as he and daughter Joanna (Charla Doherty) reluctantly open their home to a weird mix of guests who come calling in the wake of Armageddon. Among them are a pair of brothers, a lounge dancer and her manager, and a hillbilly neighbor from over the hill. Pretty well thought out, I'd say. It gets genuinely surreal when Jada (Quinn O'Hara) just about gets going with her strip tease act before killjoy Cap steps in.

Oh, and before I forget, there's a mutant in a business suit stalking the woods for food, who's terrified of plain old non toxic rain water. A million years of evolution from one bomb definitely took this guy in the wrong direction. And at what point one might ask, is how a thousand years of evolution brought us right back to fashion of the 1960's.

This is one movie you won't have to waste your time on, IF you heed the advice of other reviewers on this site. Consider us guinea pigs for your eclectic taste in low budget film, this is one that's so bad, it's bad.

This is the hope of the human race?

[bkoganbing · 2/10 · 26 August 2012]

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.

Very low budget, "thriller"

[ptusler93 · 2/10 · 1 August 2013]

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!

Terminus and Exordium

[wes-connors · 2/10 · 24 August 2012]

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

Absolutely, utterly, incredibly awful.

[rooster_davis · 1/10 · 28 June 2011]

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.

But Daddy can we at least keep the alcoholic stripper?

[juliankennedy23 · 2/10 · 14 December 2006]

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.

As good as it gets?

[whitemike15 · 10/10 · 11 January 2006]

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.

In the year 2889

[hippiechick37000 · 7/10 · 19 February 2006]

This is an awfully bad but, still good movie. It is the type of movie you must be warned about before watching. I was lucky enough to have watched it the first time with others who had seen it many times before. So, they knew what to expect and it made the experience much more enjoyable. The first clue of how the movie will turn out is in one of the first lines. The narrator opens with explaining about the nuclear war that is in the middle of happening. Then, out of nowhere he says, "They all burned up!" I almost died of laughter. The main premise of this movie is a simple one. The nuclear war blew up too far. Somehow, the people who were in some valley were unaffected by the blast and survived. The plot of the movie is that it seems they will not be affected by the radiation poisoning for a certain amount of time. They only have so many rations to live off of. There are mutants surrounding the house. In addition, Joanna's father thinks the world's population is gone so she and Steve should procreate. What a wacky father, eh? Anyone can tell this movie had a low budget. As the movie continues it looks as if it was shot in someone's backyard. Plus, if you watch the actresses closely you will notice they share the same wardrobe. I think this actually makes the movie worth watching. For the lines seem as if someone picked them randomly out of a hat. Especially, in the scene where Mickey starts to go a wee bit insane, steals the Captain's gun, and shoots at him. While shooting, Mickey starts chanting, "One little, Two little Indians..." I guess he wanted a little pick-me-up. It sure did just that for my company and me. The best parts of this film are the bad ones. So, I conclude this as "A Must See!"