Jan 31 2009
In the Year 2889 (Review)
IN THE YEAR 2889 (1967)
Directed by Larry Buchanan (The Other Side of Bonnie and Clyde)

I have a small list of the worst directors of all-time. My list includes Ed Wood (Plan 9 From Outer Space), Uwe Boll (Bloodrayne), Jason Friedberg & Aaron Seltzer (Meet the Spartans), and Joel Schumacher (Batman and Robin). Now, I’m proud (or saddened) to add another name to my list. Congratulations, Larry Buchanan! After viewing your 1967 nuclear war survival movie, In the Year 2889, you’ve made my list.
To be fare, the title is pretty safe in its speculation of the future. It sets the movie far off in 2889 so there are no worries about it being dated for another 880 years. Also, there doesn’t seem to be anything that has particularly changed in 880 years from now other than the fact that a bunch of nukes go off. There aren’t any flying spaceships or futuristic telephones, but for all I know they were incinerated once the nukes destroyed the Earth. But, honestly, that’s the only good thing I can say about the movie. And considering nothing much seems to have changed in the future from the fear of nuclear war in the mid-20th century, it could’ve easily taken place in the year 1970.
The movie begins with stock footage of explosions and a radio broadcast of a nuclear holocaust! It sounds scary, but the radio announcer sounds extremely bored (understandable considering how ridiculous the dialogue is he has to read). The film then transitions to a house in a valley surrounded by lead hills which protects them from all the radiation. Retired NAVY Captain John Ramsey decides to hold himself up in the house with his daughter Joanna. But then a whole bunch of survivors come to the house and screw up John’s plans of survival. John puts himself in charge of rationing arming himself with a pistol if anybody back-talks. Basically, the movie turns into a character drama with the occasional nuclear freaks coming to attack them. It’s kind of like Battlestar Galactica only less interesting with terrible acting and characters. Not to mention the nuclear freak look like people wearing bad Halloween masks.
Everybody is surprisingly calm considering what they went through. With a more competent or modern director, there would be people screaming and going bonkers over the fact they are all going to die and how the world has ended. Instead, everybody pulls lots of under and over-acting, rarely ever questioning how the world has changed or how life on Earth is over. The survivors seem more concerned with their own petty personal conflicts than the present danger of radiation destroying the Earth. Remember Dawn of the Dead and how that movie did such a greatjob of developing the surviving characters who held themselves up in the mall? Those characters were likable. These characters are either squabbling with one another as if it were some kind of bad soap opera while the others are tossing around theories of the developments in the radiation (which isn’t that interesting and doesn’t make much sense). So the movie succeeds at being a terrible movie in both story and characters. And you wouldn’t believe how painful the ending feels with its end credit stating ‘The Beginning’. Is that supposed to be ironic or something?
DVD Dump Counter:
-1 nuclear holocaust.
-1 bunny eaten by a mutant.
-3 bikini girl swimming pool scenes.
-2 love affairs.
-3 scary drawings of nuclear radiated animals.
-1 fist fight.
-3 scenes of getting drunk on moonshine.
-1 drunken sexy dance scene.
-1 random act of violence against records.
-1 random act of violence against jugs.
-1 act of a nuclear monster carrying off a woman.
-1 nuclear monster shot at.
RATING: Z-Movie
With a ridiculously stupid nuclear monster costume, horrible soap-opera acting, and a dull story with plot holes big enough to drive a car through, In the Year 2889 is undeniably a Z-movie. The worst thing about this movie is that it is basically a remake of a Roger Corman film, The Day the World Ended, which is actually a better movie. But, honestly, if you’re ripping off Roger Corman flicks, you have problems, Larry Buchanan.




