Logan's Run

Starring: Michael York, Jenny Agutter, Richard Jordan, Roscoe Lee Brown, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Anderson Jr., Peter Ustinov, Gary Morgan
Directed by: Michael Anderson
Rating: PG
Genre: Action, Adventure, Science Fiction
1976

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: A security officer (Michael York) in a future society discovers a sinister secret behind the society's reincarnation ritual.

Review:

Tim: I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised by how lackluster this film was. I'd heard of Logan's Run at various points over the years before I actually watched it. I guess I thought the glimpses of it from cultural osmosis suggested it would be at least a good movie. That's not the case. I'm honestly perplexed why I would have known about this film as much as I did before seeing it. It's silly, eminently forgettable, a movie with big ideas and poor execution. It's probably decent in the end, but certainly not very good.

The ideas are absolutely the film's strength, so it owes a lot of this to the novel upon which it was based. I like the idea of a future utopian society (that obviously isn't) that emphases life up to thirty. Once you hit three decades, you take part in a renewal ritual called "Carrousel" where you are killed and born again. This is obviously suspect. I did find it interesting to see this society run by computers, the crystals in the palm of your hand (which seems like would be annoying and limit dexterity, but whatever). It's all vaguely interesting as we explore this future society. Unfortunately, most of it ends up being utterly predictable. Still, I had some fun in the early stages stepping into this futuristic society.

It takes quite a while for Logan and Jessica to begin their "run" and the movie kind of unravels at that point. There's a creepy robot, ice, some legitimately solid views of the post-apocalyptic world outside of the domes, an old man, a bunch of cats... I don't know. It feels both large and disappointingly small. The movie tries hard to give the film scope- it feels much bigger than it really is. The visuals were absolutely the strength of the film. You have to account for the limitations of the mid-1970s, but the visuals were top notch. They make the film feel big- it's only when you recap the events like I just did when you realize how small and narrow the film actually is. The film did win a "Special Achievement" Academy Award for Visual Effects and I wouldn't argue with that- the visuals are indeed impressive. I was a bit surprised it was also nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction-Set Direction, but I can see this. Again, the problems with this film are not how it looks. That's really the lasting legacy of this film- it looks impressive and audiences undoubtedly had fun immersing themselves in this world. The problem is of course, once you dig deeper than the stylish facade, there's nearly nothing there.

I have to admit I've never been a fan of Michael York. I just rarely believe whatever he's doing on screen. I simply do not think he's a very talented actor. Nothing he does feels effortless or authentic- you can see him trying too hard. Even standing around doing nothing, he seems to have this awareness that he's on camera. I didn't care for him in the lead role here. Sure, his performance as Logan is fine, but it feels forced. The movie would have been far better with a more talented lead. I guess you could say the same for Jenny Agutter. She seems hopelessly lost in the role, a blank stare on her face. Honestly, the most memorable thing about her performance is the ridiculous costume she wears for most of the film. You just have to roll your eyes at the 70s excess. It feels like it was a "looks" casting verses actual talent. Agutter isn't bad, but she never makes the movie better. She's at least better than Farrah Fawcett, who gives a rough earlier-career performance. She doesn't add much and I cringed at her acting attempts. Richard Jordan was fine, but prone to overacting. Peter Ustinov added some good work, but the movie seems far more intrigued by him than it should be. Ustinov takes up a surprising amount of screen time for a character who ultimately is fairly pointless. I kept hoping there would be a payoff with his character, but there really wasn't much. The cast as a whole feels very underwhelming. There's not really any bright spots, which certainly hurts the movie.

Logan's Run certainly looks impressive, but just like the utopian society in the film, there's a dark underbelly. Here, it's nothing nefarious, it's just vapid, a stylish exterior supported by cardboard and duct tape. The movie doesn't have much rewatch value- it's a journey you take once and even that, begrudgingly. It's hard not to contrast this with Star Wars, a film that came out a year later and changed science fiction forever. This film accomplishes very little.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 6.5



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: Star Wars, Cabaret, Soylent Green, A Clockwork Orange