Logan's Run

Loosely based on the novel of the same name, Logan's Run is set in a dystopian future where life is perfect, but nobody is allowed to live past 30. People who refuse to sacrifice themselves and try to escape are called 'runners', and special police called sandmen are sent after them. Logan is a sandman, and after killing one runner gets caught up in a secret mission to find out where the successfully escaped runners are hiding. He does this by posing as a runner himself, and the story unravels from there to show the truth of our species' past. If any film is ripe for a remake, its this one. In terms of sets, dialog and performances it is very much stuck in the 1970's, but the basic premise is brilliant. I quite enjoyed Logan's Run despite it getting off to a slow start, and the admittedly wonkey effects don't detract from some interesting topics the film touches on, such as overpopulation and conformity. If you don't mind the fact that in many ways it has not aged well, its worth a watch.

I was twelve when Logan's Run came out and I thought that it was the best thing since sliced bread. It blew me away. So when I picked it up recently on DVD and watched it for the first time in twenty-eight years I was wondering how it would fare after all this time.

Well, not too badly. Many of the IMDb reviewers of Logan's Run hit the nail on the head when they say that this film is definitely a product of its time. Yes, the special effects are sort of laughable now (the teeny tiny maze cars zipping through the a model of the city that looks about six inches tall), but you have to judge those sorts of things in the context of the time they were made. As strange as it may seem to people who now expect Lord of the Rings-quality special effects, Logan's Run was cutting edge in its day. And a few of the special effects still stand up fairly well. The light envelope that comes down over the Carousel or the matte shots of Washington. Not great for twenty-first century film-making, but a minor miracle for 1976.

The story has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese and the acting is a bit touch and go, but that doesn't get in the way of a fairly entertaining movie. Seeing the movie all these years later I suppose the few moments of bad acting hit me more than anything else. As a kid I thought that Peter Ustinov's old man was brilliant, but now it just seems like awkward overacting. Which isn't to say that his character isn't somewhat endearing.

Michael York, a really wonderful actor, misses the mark a few times, but generally he and Jenny Agutter do a fine job.

Listen, this isn't a brilliant movie, but it does have its moments. Most science fiction movies made in the 1970s haven't endured the test of time especially well. With the purple mascara, pastel-coloured costumes and hair feathered like a great phoenix. But all in all I still found Logan's Run to be an entertaining and enjoyable trip back to the strange world of 1976.

Beyond the entrapment of lavish special effects (for which "Logan's Run" won an Oscar anyway), few science fiction films actually present a good story, much less one that makes you think and/or presents new ideas. "Logan's Run" is one of those few.

Before "Stars Wars" enraptured audiences with its stunning special effects and created a precedent for a string of similarly effects-laden knock-offs and genre wanna-be's (mirroring what "The War of the Worlds" had done for audiences in the 50's), true science fiction films such as "Logan's Run" were giving us stories simply complimented by special effects, not about them. I say "true" because "Star Wars" is of the fantasy genre; it is not a science fiction story, though it does share some common elements.

"Logan's Run" presents us with a vivid, somewhat horrifying vision of a possible future. It doesn't take place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." It happens on earth in a believable time frame. It doesn't ask us to greatly suspend disbelief by accepting alien races and magic powers. Instead, it presents us with a chilling fast forward of our own technology, attitudes, and policies. Concerning the latter, the film includes an almost creepy euthanasia undertone to it.

Though, in all honesty, I care more about and become more closely associated with the characters in "Star Wars," the disassociation I feel for LR's characters somewhat aids the lack of individuality that the story tries to convey. The actors, however, give great performances.

Beautiful cinematography and settings greatly compliment the film's mood and timeframe, from the sterile domed city to the decimated Washington D.C., which still provides one of (if not) the best visuals of a post-apocalyptic world that I've ever seen. It's right there with "The Planet of the Apes'" Statue of Liberty.

Another thing that SW does well is disassociate itself from the decade in which it was created. You have to overlook this aspect in LR because like so many films of the 70's, it carries its decade's time stamp.

Though minor, another thing I, in particular, enjoy about LR are the weapons. Unlike every other weapon in and out of science fiction history, LR's "blasters" do not actually shoot anything. There is simply an explosion at their designated target. It may be campy (or corny), but it's definitely different and a fine example of real, working props.

Another interesting note: the film varies greatly from the original novel, but most people agree that the film is much better. I tend to agree with them.

For me, in terms of science fiction, "Logan's Run" takes its place among such decade-defining films as "The War of the Worlds" (50's) and "The Planet of the Apes" (60's) and among such thought-provoking science fiction as "Soylent Green" and "Gattaca."

Ask yourself this: what or where is "sanctuary?" Isn't that what we're all looking for? Answer both, and you'll have the film's theme.

I love this movie for a number of reasons It's got a wonderfully original storyline, eye candy visuals, great 1970's hairdos, doesn't require a PHD to figure out and is just plain fun to watch. I know there are some people on this site that have dissected Logan's Run like a frog in Science Class and have dismissed it for some short comings. But if you attempt to watch this movie by holding a magnifying glass up to it and comparing it's special effects and sets to films like Star Wars, you're not going to enjoy it because it doesn't compete on that level. It's strength is an emphasis on the human condition and rebelling against a regimented society that lies to it's people and the special effects are just along for the ride. Also unlike Star Wars, I look at this movie as a period piece because it's a 1970's perspective on one possible future society and watching it (especially now)you never forget that. Yes it's dated, but like many things from the 70's reminds us of a simpler time and place we can remember fondly.

Logan (Michael York) is a Sandman, someone who kills all those who refuse to sacrifice themselves on their 30th birthday. But when his clock starts ticking, Logan and Jessica (Jenny Agutter) make a run for it.

I had seen this film in the mid-1990s for a class, and thought it was pretty good. Re-watching it now (2015), I can see why it is a science fiction classic, though some holes are now there. And I do not just mean plot holes (of which there are a few). The city exteriors are obviously a model, and it is almost humorous how easy it is to tell.

But the story is very good and now a part of pop culture. The two leads are great, and I wish Agutter had done more horror and sci-fi in the 70s/80s. Farrah Fawcett's role is small and sort of peculiar. Peter Ustinov is great, and nice comedic relief. Now sure what was up with all the nudity, but...