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.
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.