Rating: 
Summary: Comaparing To Laserdisc
Review: Terrific film that brings back memories of my childhood! I won't go into a detail about the film as I just wanted to mention how the DVD compares to my Laserdisc of it. First thing I noticed right away is that it is NOT as W I D E as the laserdisc picture. Why on earth would they do this? I thought the whole idea of the DVD format was to preserve the original theatrical experience!! I did a direct a/b comparison between the two using a switcher box and I measured it with a ruler. It seems that on my 20 inch screen the DVD is about 1 inch "taller" than the laserdisc, meaning that there is some cropping taking place. Needless to say I feel cheated! However on a positive note the colours are much more brilliant and detail is of course much higher on the DVD (and fewer artifacts) over the laserdisc. The supplements are also excellent !!! Listening to Michael York comment on the film was very enjoyable!!
Rating: 
Summary: Time has not been kind to this one.
Review: Coming out before the "Star Wars" phenomenon, "Logan's Run" didn't have the advantage of a studio wanting the effects work to be better. So, what you get is a good story and decent acting wrapped in effects work that is laughable. Especially now, with the sharp picture afforded by DVD, you can see the wires of Carrousel and be amused by the miniatures which probably were state of the art at the time. Given the opportunity, Michael York and Jenny Agutter make an engaging couple even if there is no real basis for their relationship except to move the story forward. Sir Peter Ustinov, as an eccentric old man, shows why his career has lasted 60+ years with a superb performance. Then, there are the star-billed, blink and you'll miss 'em, performances of Roscoe Lee Browne and Farrah Fawcett-Majors. The former unrecognizable under tons of make-up as Box, the latter just painful to watch as Holly.The story itself holds up well, and the performances of the leads is worthwhile. All in all, this one is a step below must see, but a fun diversion when you've got nothing else to watch. Just don't expect much from the "special" effects. Third billed Richard Jordan was a decent actor who seemed to get a decent role once every decade or so. From the deadly serious he plays here, to the comic foil in "The Secret of My Success," to a posturing bureaucrat in "The Hunt for Red October" he was a gifted actor. His extensive resume is worth a look at imdb.com.
Rating: 
Summary: Delightful schlock
Review: I love the fact that people bother to analyze the character development, plot-lines, etc. of this disco-era piece of fluff. Cracks me up. The movie is, after all, one of the biggest cheese-fests ever made. But it has an endearing charm that many later sci-fi movies clearly lack. If you've never seen it, or have friends that haven't, it's the perfect movie for kicking back and getting drunk to on a sleepy Saturday night. And coming from this boy, that's high praise indeed.
Rating:
Summary: Cult classic sci-fi!
Review: What is life like in a not too distant future? What we think is good today, can be barbaric tomorrow. It's hard to describe what this movie is about without giving the answer. You better see it to believe it.
Rating:
Summary: Life after 30
Review: I recently had my 30th birthday and also remember this movie from when I was a child. It was one of the first science fiction movies I had seen. The special effects are not that bad. In fact, I dont see how computer graffics are all that superior to models? Frankly, the computer generated images look like computer generated images to me. Anyway, a wonderfully done movie, good acting in a good story in a futuristic setting.
Rating:
Summary: Timeless
Review: Yes, Logan's Run is a bit dated. Most movies don't stand the test of time. There are too many contemporary cultural references in most movies to avoid this. And Logan's Run is no exception. However, for quality of story, acting and action, Logan's Run is still excellent. The characters are engaging and they develop depth as the story proceeds. Many of the themes are timeless. Our youth-oriented culture, ecological disaster and fear of government are just a few of the elements presented here. Up until Star Wars, Logan's Run was in select company as far as science fiction went. Perhaps only 2001 surpassed it prior to 1977. I still count this film among my top 20 or so favorites of all time and very highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: BEST MOVIE EVER! Besides Soylent Green.
Review: This Movie is the best. It takes place in the future where people live in domes and are killed when they turn thirty by people called Sandmen. Logan is a sandman and he goes on a mission to find out where escaped people (Runners) go by becoming one himself. This is a great movie and you should buy ten copies of it and give them to your friends. I give Logan's Run *Eats five Whoppers* FIVE STARS!
Rating:
Summary: Time-capsule movie
Review: Obvious but still endearing dystopian fantasy about a future world where no one lives past the age of thirty. Curious mixture of the naive, the silly and the wondrous -- the core story, about two who choose to escape their insulated existence, is rather dumb, but the visual wonder of the decaying Washington, D.C. is amazing. Unintentional weirdness abounds: indoor scenes which resemble a shopping mall WERE shot in a shopping mall; same tactic was used by Lucas in THX-1138 to far more chilling effect! Nice use of widescreen deserves proper presentation, though.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad if you don't think of the book
Review: After reading the novel "Logan's Run" I finally saw the film adaptation just over a year later. I had heard mixed reactions about this movie, but this increased my curiosity over what it was like. I thought I'd better see it for myself. I would compare this movie to David Lynch's adaptation of "Dune". The story has gone through quite a face lift with its transition from book to screen. That isn't necessarily bad, but it could be disappointing to some, especially if they're fans of the novel. Quite a few changes have been made, such as the mandatory age for "sleep". The film also introduces something called the Carousel, where citizens due for termination die publicly, accompanied by cheers from the crowd. In the novel it was only over-population that made it necessary for people to die prematurely. In the film it was war and pollution that forced people to be crammed together in a dome, where space was limited. This vision of the future may look dated, (i.e too clean-looking) but the model of the domed city is impressive, as is the ruinous jungle of Washington D.C. The casting and soundtrack were also good. If you have read the novel first, don't expect too much from this movie, try thinking of it as something separate.
Rating:
Summary: Future Anthropology + Jenny Agutter = Two Thumbs Up
Review: I have not read the novel from which this was derived, but the film itself really is excellent. Michael York delivers a powerful portrayal of a "sandman", whose job it is to "retire" people who try to flee this future dystopia, in which life is easy and carefree, but at 30 you die. I am a big Jenny Agutter fan, like at least one other reviewer here. She is somehow both wide-eyed and intelligent in this film, not unlike the rabbits in "Watership Down", but, in my personal opinion, quite a bit sexier! The society portrayed was an intriguing one. Michael York's character shows the casual attitudes of a member of the elite toward his considerable priveleges, but at the same time reveals that he is questioning his society at least a little bit. The scenes within the city showed several venues whose sole role seemed to be to flesh out the visual element of the plot. In the case of the Love Shop, I use the word "flesh" particularly advisedly. Anyway, it did have some neat things to say about how people transfer their sense of belonging as they age, and as they pass from one age bracket to another. The adolescents were just about right, although the way they moved was a little more theatrical, a little more Broadway, than South Central L.A., by which I mean they just sounded and looked like actors, rather than dangerous street kids. Basically, however, this movie has a lot to recommend it. Richard Jordan does a great job. Watch his facial expressions, he never falls out of character. Peter Ustinov sort of changed the focus of the film for awhile, but I didn't mind. Listen to his lines when they are in the U.S. Capitol, some of them are easy to miss, but it is worth being alert to his lines, they are frequently hysterical. The settings are still visually appealing, and as for their drawbacks, hey guys, it was the 70s, cut them some slack. Absolutely worth your money. Two thumbs up.
| 
