Badmovies.org Forum

Saw parts of this movie on t.v. in the lates 70's when I was a real little kid. I was so fond of it, that early 90's showings on cable t.v. jogged pleasant memories of my childhood.

I read the books, collected the comics, have it on dvd, and have the "bootlegged" tv show on dvd.

The movie is different from Nolan's book(s). And it doesn't age well. It had that clean, 1970's, utopian look, right down to the pajama costumes. I guess the movie was more less tailor made to fit into the 1970's sci-fi "overpopulation" phase.

I love this movie dearly and I can probably see why some people might think it's a "bad movie".

My favorite part will always be the one with the shiny, washing machine/robot Box.
It's hard to believe that just a year later another robot appeared that was much more mobile and authentic and realistic and gold-plated.

Allegedly, there is a remake in the works that'll be more true to the book. But I'll always have a soft spot for the Farrah Fawcett Logan's Run.

Viva 1976.

I remember seeing LOGAN'S RUN durin its original theatrical release.  Back then, people seemed to be pretty fascinated by the special effects.  Today, they just look cheap and dated.

I WOULD NOT consider LOGAN'S RUN to be a bad movie (although, I wouldn't consider it to be a GOOD movie, either), but it is definitely a B-movie!

Logans Run would not be classified even as a B movie, it was actually a  big budget film for it's time . The effects look cheesy, but even the effects in StarWars  which only came out a year later look cheesy compared to what they can do today.

If you want a cheesy looking space B movie from the same general time period, check out Saturn 3. Now  that's a bad B movie with only one redeeming point . You get to see Farrah Fawcett;s boobies.

trek_geezer wrote:
 
> If you want a cheesy looking space B movie from the same
> general time period, check out Saturn 3. Now  that's a bad B
> movie with only one redeeming point . You get to see Farrah
> Fawcett;s boobies.

Her Playboy video gives you the chance to see a lot more, and you don't have to sit through SATURN 3 to catch a 1 second flash. And that is a tedious movie.

Logan's Run was not a bad movie or either a b-movie.  It has some interesting ideas and explored them well.  It came from a time when Sci-Fi movies were more intelligent than today in that they actually tried to explore some interesting or challenging ideas using a futuristic setting.  It was a smart and well-executed movie.  Sure the effects and props and clothing are very dated, but that's to be expected when looking back 30 years.  The story and plot underneath are still strong.

I think the idea is strong, and as well exceuted as was possible.  I don't think it is a B movie.  It sets out to do a job and does it well.  Age alone can't make it a B film.  70's style was just bad all over.  
-Ed

Indeed, theoriginal may not be much like the book. The robot Box, especially comes off better in the book, then he does in the movie. But even if the remake,  directed by Bryan Singer, comes closer to the book in its gritty appearance and lowering the age of termination from the original's 30 to the book's 21, I think the original will still be my favorite. If only because the original was so fun to watch. And I don't think the remake can top the original's cast of Michael York, Jenny Agutter, Richard Jordan, Farrah Fawcett, Roscoe Lee Browne, and Peter Ustinov.

I have always wanted to see this movie but never get around to it.  Logans Run and Soylent Green are two older Sci Fi films that I have been interested in seeing.

Also, I liked the mention of Logans Run in Family guy, where the Dog Brian is talking to a psychiatrist about his dream in which he is in the world of Logan's Run and is getting chased until he eventually gets cornered and he points at Snoopy and says 'what about that guy, he must be like 50 years old'.

It was just so absurdly funny that I just have to track down a copy and watch the movie.

70's and 80's sci fi films are extremely funny and entertaining to watch.  I just saw Barbarella for the first time a few months ago, and couldn't stop giggling like a little girl at the mention of Duran Duran.

Logan's Run was a Bad Movie in my opinion (big B, big M) as opposed to something like Van Helsing, which is just a bad movie.  I define Bad Movies as movies I can sit through and laugh and crack jokes pretty much the whole time, and yet still enjoy - to some extent - on the level they were intended.  

Now, I recall watching it as a kid (movie and show) and pretty much having my world rocked by the amazing effects, fantastic science and timely message... but now, 25 years later, it is definitely a Bad Movie.  Is it fair to look at something that was top of the line a quarter century ago and judge it through the lens of what's out there today?  Maybe not, but I'm doing it anyway.

my light turned red this year,  SANCTUARY!

I own it, I like the concept and it's entertaining

Very gloomy seventies sci-fi that must have dated the instant Star Wars opened, and not nearly as intelligent as Soylent Green.  On the plus side, Michael York fleshed out his rather robotic assassin-turned-hero, Jenny Agutter got to wear a revealing outfit and it moved a good lick for films of that vintage.

dean wrote:
> to watch.  I just saw Barbarella for the first time a few
> months ago, and couldn't stop giggling like a little girl at
> the mention of Duran Duran.

The group took their name from the movie.

I love how that chick always looks like she's about to sneeze, there's something very hot about that.

I loved Logan's Run. I remembered it being a very cheesy movie, and expected a bit of a laugh when I bought the bargain DVD last year, but it was actually much better than I remembered. The story is intelligent and presented very well. The look of the movie, I think, is classic 70s dystopia, right down to the future being made of malls and boiler rooms. I don't think it's fair to call it dated. Even Box, although simple, achieves a certain effect that's hard to describe.

The only thing that bothered me was that it became dead slow once they'd escaped. I could have done with a little less of Ustinov mumbling bits of T.S. Elliot.

I don't think I'd say Logan's run is a bad movie, but I would say that it was rather untimely: if this film had come out at the beginning of the 1970s instead of the end, I think it would have done a whole lot better critically and financially. In many ways, I do think of this as rather the last gasp of the 1970s style of science fiction film-making, just as I think of Star Wars as the very first film made in the new style that was to become very popular in the 1980s.

Mind, I'm not just talking about the look of the film, although I do generally think the 1970s "futuristic" clothing and decoration was atrocious. What I'm referring to is the story's themes. Compare Logan's Run with Star Wars, and these differences just leap right out at you:

--In Star Wars, technology is treated as a rather fun and friendly thing. In Logan's Run, technology is generally pandering and mind-numbing at best, menacing and murderous at worst.

--In Star Wars, civilization is thriving in every conceivable way, even out on the desert planet Tatooine. In Logan's Run, civilization has become a gilded cage that's stifling all human creativity and innovation.

--In spite of its happy ending, Logan's Run takes a rather depressing view of humanity and its probable future. Star Wars, though it's supposedly set "a long time ago in a place far, far away," really is a more cheerful portrayal of a futuristic world in which, though there'll be just as much trouble from human nature as there is today, there'll be plenty of fun stuff to do, too.

--Nearly everything in Logan's Run is sparkling, clean, and sterile. In Star Wars, everything is dirty, dusty, encrusted with mold, or generally falling apart; the only really clean and sterile setting in that film is the interior of the Death Star, and only some of it at that. In other words, the one film is clean and orderly almost to a fault, while the other is every bit as messy and disorderly as the real world.

--Logan's Run has a lot of gratuitous sex and nudity. In Star Wars, there's a fair bit of flirting and romance, but it never really takes center stage and certainly never gets hot-and-heavy. (Carrie Fisher even had her breasts taped down under that long gown in some scenes just to keep her from looking as voluptuous and well-built as she really was. As she said in an interview later, "No jiggling in the Empire.")

--Logan is generally the conformist organization man who has to be jogged out of his complacency, while Luke Skywalker is a rebellious youngster who's itching for adventure from the get-go.

In other words, these films are practically opposites of each other. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Logan's Run would certainly have fit the increasingly suspicious and dreary mood of the time, but by the late 1970s, people were getting rather sick of hearing about how miserable everything was, and began wanting to have something cheerful and inspiring again. Though Star Wars doesn't seem so impressive now as it did back when it came out, it's worth remembering that it gave the movie industry and a lot of the rest of the entertainment industry a much-needed shot in the arm. (It also gave the merchandise clauses in movie contracts more value: up to then, they had been known as "junk clauses" because practically no one expected to make much money off of commercial tie-ins.)

These things go in cycles, as one can see with The Matrix, which works from many of the same themes as Logan's Run, albeit in a much more timely and well-constructed fashion. A film that wasn't nearly as timely, though I still think it was an entertaining film, was 6th Day starring  Schwartzenegger. If it had come out some years earlier, I think it would have gotten much better press. As it was, 6th Day did ultimately make a tidy little profit, but most critics yawned at it and it wasn't really a big hit.

In short, timing makes a big difference. If Logan's Run had been a late 1960s film, I'll bet a lot more people would have taken it more seriously, and it would be considered more of a classic today. As it is, it was "dated" back when it first came out.

The difference there is that Logan's Run was a genuine SF story, trying to explore certain "what ifs." Star Wars was a space opera - a generic action story (and I love it, believe me) dressed in SF wrappings.

The change is not so much in the kind of science fiction Hollywood has embraced, it more reflects the abandonment of the real thing, in favour of a model that is mostly action in a futuristic setting. More accessible to the masses.

What is special about the early 70s was it was a time when real SF stories could be made.