In the Year 2889 (1967) (TV)

User Rating:

2.4/10   

Director:

Larry Buchanan

Writer:

Harold Hoffman (writer)

Genre:

Horror | Sci-Fi

Plot:

A group of post A-war survivors, gathered together in a valley, are menaced by cannibalistic human mutants with telepathic powers...

Plot Keywords:

Mutant | Radiation Sickness | Beautiful Woman | Remake | Nuclear War

Cast

Paul Petersen	...	Steve
Quinn O'Hara	...	Jada
Charla Doherty	...	Joanna Ramsey
Neil Fletcher	...	Captain John Ramsey
Hugh Feagin	...	Mickey Brown
Max W. Anderson	...	Granger
Bill Thurman	...	Tim Henderson (as Billy Thurman)
Byron Lord	...	Mutant

Also Known As:

2889
Year 2889

Runtime:

80 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

Canada:G (Quebec) | UK:PG | Canada:PG (Manitoba/Nova Scotia) | USA:Unrated

Filming Locations:

Dallas, Texas, USA

Company:

Azalea Pictures

Trivia:

After the success of their earlier motion picture Master of the World (1961), American International Pictures had planned to make another film based on a Jules Verne story, "In the Year 2889", however this project was later shelved. A few years later, when Larry Buchanan was given the script of AIP's earlier film Day the World Ended (1955) to remake, a new title was needed. Since AIP had already registered the "In the Year 2889" title, it was tacked onto the Buchanan film.

Quotes:

Captain John Ramsey: That defies all the laws of man and god.
Steve: There may be a new set of laws, John. Laws for a post-nuclear life we know nothing about.

Movie Connections:

Featured in "Son of Svengoolie: In the Year 2889 (1967) (#1.1)" (1979)

OK, I will be the apologist for this movie

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.