The Terminal Man (1974) User Reviews

It manages to make a modern Frankenstein story dull...

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 17 November 2019]

... and I am not saying slow, which is different from dull. "Babbette's Feast" is confined in cast and setting and although I guess you could call it slow, it is not at all dull. George Segal plays Harry Benson, a man with a form of epilepsy in which he becomes violent during his seizures and then awakens remembering nothing. He also is paranoid about machines controlling humans ten years before "The Terminator" was released.

His wife leaves him, and it looks like his outbursts will have him traveling through the criminal justice system which can do nothing for this situation or maybe he will wind up shot dead by some would be victim.

So some scientists think that Benson could be a beneficiary of an experimental procedure in which a small computer is implanted in his brain and his epilepsy is controlled by impulses the computer transmits. Post operation, things seem to be a success, but Dr. Janet Ross (Joan Hackett) discovers that Benson's brain is becoming addicted to the impulses, and in time - and she actually can calculate the time - he will have more frequent and severe violent outbursts.

But before she can do any kind of medical intervention, Benson leaves. Apparently he has prearranged an escape with some woman he barely knows, sporting a blond wig so you can't tell he just had surgery.

So the last half of the film is just Benson having those predicted seizures and becoming horrifically violent during each one. It doesn't have the pathos or irony of the Frankenstein monster's trek through the German countryside. Segal just begins to shake, his eyes roll up in his head, and he does violence to whomever and with whatever is at hand. That's it. That's essentially all that the last half is.

George Segal never really got the credit he deserved for some of the really good roles he had in the 70s. This is not one of those good roles, and I really don't see how he or anybody else but the writer could have saved a film that is really only half there. I'd give the pre-escape part of the film a 7 or 8. I'd give the last half a three. This is where I come up with my 5/10 rating.

Haywire & Empty Thriller.

[AaronCapenBanner · 5/10 · 16 September 2013]

Based on the Michael Crichton novel, this adaptation(directed by "Get Carter" Mike Hodges) tells the story of computer programmer Harry Benson, who, in an attempt to cure his brain seizures, agrees to an experiment where he has micro-computers implanted in his brain, in order to correct the faulty brain chemistry. Things don't go as planned when his new mind starts to get pleasure from the violent impulses he now feels, and so escapes from the hospital, starting a desperate manhunt to prevent him from murdering anyone, and of course to cover-up the scientific failure.

George Segal is believable as Harry, and the rest of the cast is fine, and though Mike Hodges tries, this film is simply too dreary and downbeat to succeed, and by the end, there doesn't seem to have been any discernible point to it all.

Overlooked and interesting 70's science fiction effort.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 18 December 2011]

"The Terminal Man" is written for the screen, produced, and directed by Mike Hodges ("Get Carter", "Flash Gordon", "Croupier"), based upon the Michael Crichton novel, and tells an intriguing story, the likes of which Crichton always excelled at, that combined science and thrills.

The likable George Segal stars as Harry Benson, a computer scientist who, since a car accident, has suffered from blackouts & seizures that made him dangerously violent. Now a team of surgeons is performing ground breaking surgery on him: attaching electrodes to 40 of his brain terminals that will hopefully counteract his violent impulses. However, as the viewer certainly suspects will happen, this doesn't work, and his brain ends up craving the shocks / stimuli that it receives, and Harry loses control once again.

I can certainly understand the problems that some people may have with this production, as it's really not the typical thriller at all. It's slow, and it's quiet; there's not even that much musical accompaniment on the soundtrack. It does exhibit a fairly cold, clinical approach, and the emphasis on the story's exposition will inevitably bore people more conditioned to non- stop action in what they watch. Even after Harry has made the expected escape from the hospital, he doesn't spend that much time running amok, and certainly does not kill very many people.

But this movie *is* noticeably intelligent and thoughtful and does offer rewards for patient viewers. It has one striking murder set piece that's rather artfully done; it takes place atop a water bed, and the sprays of water and the way the blood spreads definitely are what make the scene. And, like other movies of this kind, there is a certain wariness (voiced by Harry) on the part of mankind regarding the computer age and what it could mean for us all.

Another wonderful element to "The Terminal Man" is its incredible cast of both stars and rock solid character actors. Segal is effectively low key in the lead, and is nicely supported by Joan Hackett, Jill Clayburgh (in a small but welcome appearance), Richard Dysart, Donald Moffat, Matt Clark, Michael C. Gwynne, William Hansen, and Norman Burton. (It's particularly fun to see Dysart and Moffat sharing scenes eight years before they did John Carpenters' "The Thing" together.) And playing smaller roles are the likes of James B. Sikking, Steve Kanaly, Jack Colvin, Ian Wolfe, Lee de Broux, Victor Argo, and Nicholas Worth.

This is all reasonably engaging stuff, leading up to an ending that, while somewhat conventional, is staged in a very unique way. All in all, "The Terminal Man" is a good movie that does deserve to be discovered or rediscovered.

Seven out of 10.

Slow?! Try a little patience.

[wilbrifar · 29 June 2003]

I was looking for a bit of trivia about this film and made the mistake of reading the reviews here. My jaw dropped when I saw the overwhelming opinion that this movie is worthless because it's too slow. Has everyone been too brain-deadened by recent Hollywood thrill rides to appreciate a patiently unfolding story? The Terminal Man is very creepy, very scary, and is acted with amazing skill by even the smallest of bit players. Each one of the doctors involved in the experiment, for example, carries his or her own personal baggage, and it's that baggage which clouds their reason and makes true progress impossible. The message of the film seems to be that no matter how advanced science becomes, people will still be people, and our petty prides and jealousies will tear down every accomplishment. That's the brilliance of this movie; it takes a broad sci-fi theme yet reduces it to its most unpredictable element: the personalities of the persons involved. There are so many amazing scenes in this film where a line or two of casual conversation reveals so much about the power games being played between the speakers. On the outside, these scientists are titans of technology; on the inside, they're closer to the befuddled old men of the comedy "BALL OF FIRE". The only one who thinks with heart as well as head is the Joan Hackett character, and the clash between her and the good 'ol boys of science is both profound and heartbreaking.

I urge anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size to ignore the negative comments and give this film a chance. Viewed with an open mind and a little patience, this movie becomes quite an exiting experience. It's one of the greatest sci-fi/horror films of all time, and has never gotten its due respect. It's the kind of film we could use more of, and the fact it's considered boring by today's audiences is very sad proof of the dumbing-down effect of Hollywood clap-trap. We're used to movies that ask you to set back while you're force-fed the story. The Terminal Man requires that you watch what's happening, listen to what's being said, and think about what's between the lines. If you can't do that, stick with Vin Diesel films.

a slow grind

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 28 August 2021]

Harry Benson (George Segal) suffers from increasing seizures and blackouts. The latest incident has him almost killing two people. He's a computer scientist specializing in AI. His sincere prediction is that computers will conquer humanity. He is joining experimental surgeries to implant electronics into his brain but there are some unexpected complications.

This is a Michael Crichton book. The prolific writer has some big ideas but it often takes a good adaptation to inject a compelling narrative. This movie doesn't have it. The story is drawn-out and slow-moving. The surgery takes forever and generates little tension. The second half tries to turn into something else. By then, most people would have already lost interest. This movie may work better if it skips a lot of the surgery minutia. The story may have some social commentary to make but it's just too darn slow.

NOT a thriller, but pretty good as long as you know what to expect

[bgaiv · 6/10 · 1 August 2022]

This movie has a unique tone that's hard to define. "Bleak" comes to mind but is inadequate. It's as if Bleak came alive and made an even bleaker movie.

That's one thing you need to know going in. The other is not that it's slow, but that it spends a ridiculous amount of time on the fictitious surgery. For example, the doctor almost hits a vein in the patient's brain which would have killed him. However, a surgical mistake can happen in any sort of surgery and this lengthy bit doesn't address the far more interesting ethical issues.

This is in contrast to The Andromeda Strain. In that film, there are enormously detailed and lengthy scenes of the Wildfire lab. But the difference is that movie was more about the scientists and the lab than the germ itself. Here, that's just not the case.

There's other parts of the film that provide a weird atmosphere yet seem entirely irrelevant. The doctor goes to a strip club to find Segal and while I like the music played, it's hard to see why this is here considering it's mostly focused on the stripper stage.

The far more interesting issues are of course the ethical ones.

The treatment they give this man is directly compared to lobotomies, a very dark page of medical history. After they install the device, they start activating different electrodes to see what happens... this isn't that much different than the lobotomy performed on Rosemary Kennedy where they kept cutting while talking to her to see the effects. It's incredibly chilling and plausible.

A curiosity here is that there is essentially an ad for Scientology on the radio in the background in one scene. This makes sense considering their disdain for psychiatry which was rather well founded at least at the time.

There's frustration here in that one huge theme seems to have been all but ignored-- that the patient was convinced computers would take over. I suppose the idea might have been that Segal was increasingly acting robotic... in several scenes when he's walking he does seem like a mindless drone. But I just saw him as a zonked out zombie and zombies are standard horror fare. It didn't occur to me that that might have been the idea until I was writing this review.

Anyway, it's a fascinating watch as long as you know what you're getting into. It's definitely NOT a thriller. There are many striking visuals, like a long curious zoom on a parrot.

A really bad sci-fi movie.

[jaybsigel · 1/10 · 15 November 2021]

It would be tough to make this movie much worse than this one. There is poor character development, so what happens to anybody doesn't much matter. George Segal basically plays himself. The editing is terrible with scenes that add nothing to the story. Others has mentioned that the story itself progresses at a snail's pace and that is very true. Even understanding that the state of technology in 1974 was pre-personal computer, the attempts at looking futuristic are laughable. In the end, the police execute the character played by George Segal. Just who authorized that and how is that even legal is apparently a besides-the-point.

So, the story is that even though we know next to nothing about the brain, electrodes are implanted in his brain to prevent seizures that would otherwise result in violence. If it had worked, there wouldn't be much of a story, would there? It's just another of many, many movies about dangerous research, medical procedures and technology run amok with their unintended but very predictable consequences - basic Frankenstein concepts. There's nothing new or worthwhile watching here unless you need to see what a terrible movie looks like with its awful plot, acting, editing, and pacing.

A neat idea....less than perfect execution.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 22 January 2020]

"The Terminal Man" is a story taken from a Michael Crichton novel....and like Michael Crichton stories it's heavy on the medical/scientific aspects. This isn't surprising since he was a Harvard-trained doctor.

The story is about a man with a very strange seizure disorder. Instead of going into typical grand mal or petit mal seizures, Harry (George Segal) has outbursts of violence...with no recollection of any of this afterwards. The story is about his receiving an experimental surgery...one that intends to suppress this need for violence and replace it with positive feelings Unfortunately, the surgery goes desperately wrong and now Harry NEEDS violence....and he goes on a rampage.

The basic story is excellent. Much of this is because of the moral implications of such psychosurgery. Unfortunately, the way it's handled isn't great. The hospital and, in fact, all the film is monochromatic. All the usual colors seem to be missing and the black & white feel of the movie made viewing somewhat tedious. Also tedious was the lack of emotion throughout the film....with too many characters being too quiet considering the material. An infusion of color and energy would have taken this from a very good movie to an exceptional one.

Scientist who fears a computer takeover is himself overtaken...but where's the irony?

[moonspinner55 · 3/10 · 28 September 2017]

Brilliant computer scientist (George Segal) has been involved in an auto accident which left "a pressing" on his brain; uncontrollably angry and violent, he has nearly killed two people. Diagnosed with paraepilepsy, he's now become the willing subject for a new surgical procedure to the brain...but the 'rewiring' which takes place may prove to be no cure at all. Intentionally clinical and cold, this adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel has been directed by Mike Hodges with barely a trace of personality, stray levity, energy or irony. Many of the doctors and nurses on-screen have been erased of their individuality; the one doctor who disapproves of the operation (Joan Hackett) has to get her compassion for the subject across by using her eyes (and by calling out his name, "Harry!", repeatedly). Hodges, who also penned the script after Crichton himself was removed from the project, seems to frown on frank verbal exchanges. Everything is muted for an effect. The supporting cast is filled with excellent character actors who ultimately don't get around to doing much, while the star of the picture seems curiously misplaced. Segal can be a fine dramatic actor, but when he's on the loose here (in an ill-fitting wig) he just looks silly. The style of the film (or rather, the look of it, as 'style' gives the production unearned prestige) has attracted latter-day admirers, this despite the pretentious artistic flourishes. Stanley Kubrick was reportedly impressed with the picture, although this could be legend (there's an attack on a locked bathroom door which is amusingly similar to "The Shining"). However, the narrative isn't gripping, the jaundiced bits of dried-out cynicism are kept bubbling under the surface, and the finale dribbles away instead of packing a punch. *1/2 from ****

Violent seizures and slow pacing don't mix very well

[Coventry · 6/10 · 19 May 2017]

I'm a big admirer of the writer Michael Crichton. Perhaps I'm a bigger admirer of his work than I am a fan of it, if that makes sense. I admire and tremendously respect Crichton because he was one of the sole Sci-Fi writers in history able to create an almost entirely new sub genre and yet remain creative and versatile within that sub genre. Even though his finest stories like "The Andromeda Strain", "Westworld", "The Terminal Man" and even "Jurassic Park" are seemingly very differing tales, they basically do share the same basic concept, namely artificial technology and/or science that develops and turns into a giant menace to the same human that created it. I'm also a big admirer of Michael Crichton because he was a very intelligent person – probably one of the only Sci- Fi/thriller novelists with a Harvard Medical School degree – and thus knew very well what he was writing about. The films he directed, as well as the ones adapted from his novels, are often extremely complex, talkative and stuffed with professional jargon. That's not because he was pretentious, but because he was an expert. Crichton referred to "The Terminal Man" as the worst adaptation of his work, but maybe that has to do with personal resentment because he was initially set to adapt his own novel and direct, but got fired by the directors.

"The Terminal Man" is everything but a bad film, although it's fairly easy to see why many people dislike it. The brief plot description promises an exciting concept of a man suffering from psychosis who agrees to participate in a scientific/medical experiment in which a tiny computer is implanted in his brain that will keep his violent impulses under control. Although seemingly successful at first, the man's brain somehow becomes addicted to the little shocks that the electrodes are sending out, resulting in the triggering of even more violent impulses. If you read it like this, "The Terminal Man" sounds like a tense, exciting and action-packed thriller, but instead it's actually a slow-brooding, atmospheric and integer drama. It all is a bit misleading perhaps… The premise speaks of "A man suffering from a mental condition that often causes him to become homicidal", but we are only introduced to Harry Benson when he obediently awaits the operation and remains very calm and docile at all times. There are only a few photographs to indicate his violent nature. Then the operation itself is almost shown integrally, which raises the impression to last forever. Then, finally, the plot describes how Benson – and I quote – "escapes from the hospital and goes on a spree of violence and murder". Well, first of all, there's a long period of time between the operation and the escape in which barely anything happens. The so-called spree of violence and murder is somewhat exaggerated as well, since Benson only commits one murder (although admittedly a very savage one). However, to compensate for the lack of action, we do receive – next to the intelligent and tense script – a continuous series of extraordinary beautiful camera angles, compositions and set-pieces. Director Mike Hodges ("Get Carter", "Pulp") literally turns the film into a work of art, with stunning cinematography and exquisite use of classical music. I honestly wished for "The Terminal Man" to benefice from a faster pacing, a bit more background to Harry Benson's character, a bit less medical mambo-jumbo and a few more brutish murders.

I enjoyed the basic idea for the film but found its execution FAR too cumbersome.

[csrothwec · 4/10 · 17 May 2003]

Should be re-titled "The Interminable Man"! A good idea which still has a lot of possibilities, (behavioural modification via. computer brain implants), but spoilt by a lamentably SLOOOOW plot development, which also moves into cringingly sub-standard thriller/stalker territory, (penultimate scene where George Segal breaks into the female doctor's house, (who, inevitably, is alone AND in the shower!)), as the film has nowhere else to go.

Brilliant - you could hang every shot on your wall

[spence100 · 9/10 · 26 May 2004]

Sadly, I first saw this movie as I was chopping time from it so that the Sci-Fi channel could run an 88 minute movie in a 2 hour slot. I hadn't seen it or heard of it before that, and I was completely blown away. It was menacing, threatening and extremely sad. I found the 'slow' pacing quite beautiful, and I loved the way that the colour within each scene slowly built as the movie progressed. Compare the monochromatic open to the closing cemetery scene. Colour comes as his life slips away. Beautiful. Favourite scenes: the helicopter taking off at the very beginning; Dr. Ross lying asleep on her bed, in her amazing 70's house, in that fabulous dress; Harry standing in the tunnel waiting for his ride from Angela. Do not judge this movie by today's standards. Open your mind, be patient, and pray that electrodes 31 & 32 may one day run your life! If, like me, you have seen and liked Andreas Gursky's photographs, you'll like this film.

Never Boring, Despite Its Deliberate Pace

[ferbs54 · 6/10 · 26 April 2017]

Just watched a pretty interesting sci-fi thriller from 1974, Mike Hodges' "The Terminal Man," starring George Segal, Joan Hackett, Jill Clayburgh, Richard Dysart and Ian Wolfe. Based on a Michael Crichton novel, this one tells the story of a computer programmer (Segal) who lives in fear that the machines of the world will soon be taking over the humans. His fears are made reality after he suffers a terrible car accident, the after effects of which leave him with occasional amnesiac and violent episodes. To effect a cure, he is made the subject of a new operation. A device is inserted into his brain that will deliver shocks to ward off these episodes. Unfortunately, the operation does not have the intended effect, and before long, Segal becomes a homicidal maniac, going bonkers at periods that the surgeons are able to predict. The film is very slow moving in its first half, and indeed, the operation that is performed on Segal takes up a very long part of the film's running time. But the movie is never boring, despite its deliberate pace. In the second half, as Segal grows increasingly mad, things get more interesting, of course. The main problem with the film, however, is that we never learn anything much about Segal's past, so as a character, he is pretty much a cipher throughout. The picture ends with a predictable albeit memorable downbeat finale, lending a touch of ambiguity to the film's title itself. Strangely enough, at one point in the film, the Clayburgh character is seen watching the movie "Them!" on her television...the very film that I had just watched a few days before. I thought that was pretty strange. Anyway, a marginal thumbs up for this '70s thriller.

Slow but quite compelling 70's sci-fi.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 9 January 2010]

The Terminal Man is set in Los Angeles where a man named Harry Benson (George Segal) is set to undergo a revolutionary operation, after being involved in a car accident & suffering a brain injury he has had black-outs during which he becomes incredibly violent. Several brilliant surgeon's & doctors feel that by implanting electrodes into Harry's brain a computer will send signals which will neutralize the black-outs & the violence, the operation goes ahead & initially is deemed a success but as Harry's brain waves are monitored it becomes clear that his black-outs are increasing & that his brain has become addicted to the electrical impulses. Harry escapes from hospital & goes on a violent rampage through Los Angeles as he eventually targets the (young, good looking female) doctor he believes is responsible for his condition...

Written, produced & directed by Mike Hodges not long after his success with the classic Michael Caine thriller Get Carter (1971) this futuristic sci-fi thriller was based on a novel by Michael Crichton (who was apparently fired from writing the screenplay for this film adaptation because it did not follow his original novel closely enough & he was originally set to direct as well) & is an obvious & sometimes striking warning about science. The whole film desensitizes humanity, human spirit & the world as we know it, everything is very sterile, faceless & conformist from the white on white hospital to the drone like doctors & police who have no real personality. I suppose the films big scene takes place just after the operation & Harry is questioned as various technicians in another room electrically induce all sorts of feelings & sensations which I guess is supposed to imply that science & scientists regard humanity & our thoughts & feelings & who we are as nothing more than electrical impulses. The film is very cold with little emotion shown by anyone which is a bit of a flaw since there's never that balance between the emotive-less science & our own feelings, individuality & thoughts where one can clearly been seen lessening the other. Also at almost 110 minutes not that much happens, the pace is slow to say the least but the story is good & fairly engaging if you can get into it although it definitely does require patience.

The film has a very stark sterile clean look with very little personality, the hospital itself is whiter than white & Hodges films in a very matter of fact way as the camera barely moves & a lot of shots are nicely composed & almost seem symmetrical. I can't remember any background music at all, there's some incidental music going on as doctors visit a club with a singer on stage but no actual score & again I presume it's meant to be very emotionless, detached & matter of fact. This was not a big success & it never had a cinema release here in the UK & isn't easy to find on DVD either.

The production values are good & it's well made. The acting like the story & setting is quite emotionless & George Segal is the only one who shows a little humanity & personality as the big bad scientists even take that way from him in the end.

The Terminal Man is a film that makes a point & it takes quite a while to do so, the story & film-making is good here but the pace will put many off & while some may say the slow pace doesn't matter I think it does. Not a bad film at all but I doubt I would want to see it again.

Time capsule of 70s science

[bulk-15 · 3 August 2004]

Although this movie is weak as a 'thriller', its real power is its evocative sense of place and the emotional texture of science as it was seen in the 1970s -- sombre and dystopian, yet strangely attractive.

The plot centres on a group of scientists and doctors who are pushing the frontiers of neuroscience by implanting a computerized chip in the brain of a man (George Segal) afflicted with terrible seizures. The chip is programmed to shock the patient's brain each time a seizure is about to happen. The effort is prestigious, the technology flawless, and the doctors, scientists and technicians react to the initial success of the project with a certain conceited arrogance. Only when the the chip malfunctions, and the patient breaks out of the hospital and starts killing people, does the veneer of omnipotence and professionalism fall away, revealing in the scientists ambition, uncertainty, and humanity.

Segal does a good job of portraying the wildly changing emotions of a man who's mind is under the control of a computer. At the push of a button he can be made to laugh, cry, scream, babble like a child, or even become aroused, as the computer chip in his brain explores his mental map. It's a study that would be interesting to fans of Oliver Sacks.

The most interesting moments of the movie are the early ones, where the patient interacts with his dispassionate doctors in the sterile, streamlined chromium world of the hospital. The doctors and scientists seem like mechanical, perfected reflections of the technologies that surround them. The messy humanity of the patient, demonstrated through humour, fear, weakness and anger, stands in contrast to his surroundings, and it is not surprising to the audience when he disappears from his hospital room.

Scenes of the doctors in tuxedos and evening gowns at a dinner party while a shiny computer console monitors their ailing patient lend the robotic professionals a strange, formal humanity, at the same moment in the movie when their own fallibility begins to be revealed. Both technology and technologists promise perfection, and in the end both are revealed as imperfect and unable to overcome the challenges of the human condition - sickness, insanity, violence and death.

Once the patient leaves the hospital, the movie shifts to a more conventional 'crazed murderer' theme, and things become less interesting. It is this shift that cripples Terminal Man and prevents it from being the science fiction classic it might have been. The movie closes with a disappointing, clichéd 'Big Brother' riff on mind control and the future.

This is still a movie worth watching, however, if only to get a glimpse of how the 1970s saw the near future. There are endless details for the technophile, from absurdly technological architecture to atomic batteries to ancient video terminals to mainframe computers to futuristic touchtone telephones. The technological landscape is presented with a glistening newness that evokes movies like The Anderson Tapes, Coma, Westworld, and The Andromeda Strain (the last three of which, like Terminal Man, were written by Michael Crichton). The set design and the soundtrack (mostly Bach, No. 25 in the Goldberg Variations) create an inviting, peaceful sense of space that stands at odds with the tension of the plot. The clean, elegant world of Terminal Man is one in which you would want to live.

Watch Terminal Man for the sets, for the music, and for its nostalgic sense of a forgotten future. Back in the 70s, this was the future everyone was expecting, if not hoping to find right around the corner. Like Andromeda Strain, Coma and the Anderson Tapes, Terminal Man is less a thriller and more a cultural time capsule. Get comfortable in your beanbag chair, turn on the lava lamp, and enjoy.

Mind Control

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 9 February 2023]

The computer scientist Harry Benson (George Segal) has a violent behavior caused by seizures and blackouts from his epilepsy. When he is invited to be submitted to an experimental surgery to implant electrodes in his brain by a renowned team of doctors, he accepts the invitation despite the opposition of the psychiatrist Dr. Janet Ross (Joan Hackett). The electrodes would detect the seizure before it happens and then stop it, and the surgery is a success. The doctors induce seizures to Benson monitored by computers to test the effects of the healing, but Benson flees from the hospital with his friend Angela Black (Jill Clayburgh). Now the doctors and the police run against time of the next seizures that are turning Benson's violence to next level of killing.

"The Terminal Man" is a boring 1974 sci-fi film with the story of the mind control by computers of a violent man. The plot is developed in a very slow pace and Benson's surgery is absolutely tiresome. Michael Crichton's novel is not good and this movie is dated. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "O Homem Terminal" ("The Terminal Man")

S-L-O-W

[jellopuke · 6/10 · 15 April 2019]

Having read the book, I knew what to expect, but man oh man, did they ever get the balance wrong. Instead of focusing on the after surgery stuff where he goes crazy and kills people, they spent the first hour focusing entirely on the surgery, going in to WAY too much detail. It picks up after that with some genuinely creepy stuff (maybe even a moment that inspired Kubrick in the Shining?) but that first hour... yikes... it's what fast forward buttons are made of.

Tried Hard to Like It, I Tell Ya

[jacobnunnally · 3/10 · 12 July 2015]

I love Michael Crichton movies - Coma, Looker, Westworld, The Andromeda Strain, etc. These movies are fantastic. They're engrossing and exciting and interesting.

But yikes, "The Terminal Man" was hard to watch. It was boring. I don't mind it was slow - one of my favorite movies of all time is "Barry Lyndon." What I minded was that nothing happens.

*Spoilers Below* The movie is 105 minutes long and 2 things happen: the protagonist has a surgery and later he kills someone. Surgery scene lasts about 5 minutes, murder scene lasts about 2 minutes. So out of 105 minutes, only in 7 minutes does something actually happen (an event).

I guess you could argue the scene when he breaks out of the hospital an event, but - they don't show it on screen. It's implied.

"The Terminal Man" is far from being the worst movie I've seen, but it is certainly in the running for the most boring. People sit and talk gently. In the next scene, people stand and talk. Then in another scene they walk and talk. Repeat. That's it. That's the whole movie if you include the 2 scenes mentioned above.

Unreal. I wonder if the novel is this boring, I can't imagine it is.

I tried hard to like this movie, since I think so highly of Michael Crichton I wanted to like it like I like Coma or Looker - but those movie have so much action, suspense, and mystery. "The Terminal Man" by contrast there's nothing to it, it's just people talking to each other. Even during the surgery scene I counted as one of the events of the movie - they just stand around and talk to each other in monotone.

This is a rather tone-deaf effort. I fault the screenwriter (didn't even bother to look who it is) because the script is trash. Neat idea, without a doubt, but jeez the screenplay is awful.

They are coming for you next....

[MarieGabrielle · 6/10 · 10 June 2007]

There are several premises in this film which may or may not be acceptable to the viewer, which will then determine whether or not you will like this film.

It was made in 1974. Anti-depressants and mind control were very much topics for discussion, as was Scientology. Can psycho-surgery cure rage and epilepsy? That is the question asked.

Joan Hackett is very good as the psychiatrist and Richard Dysart the knife happy surgeon. George Segal as the patient prone to violence has not much of a part here. The Jill Clayburgh character is downright clichéd and annoying.

Some of the scenes are effective such as the murder of Angela (Clayburgh) and the network of blood on white tile. The shower scene with Hackett is derivative of "Psycho" and Hitchcock down to the stark white interior.

Overall an interesting commentary on psychiatry and neurosurgery by Michael Crichton who had written this book, I do recall reading it years ago. It was new age before we had new age. A frightening look at medicine, psychiatric issues, and mind control. I would recommend reading the book for a clearer picture of the author's intent.

a slow grind

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 10 August 2021]

Harry Benson (George Segal) suffers from increasing seizures and blackouts. The latest incident has him almost killing two people. He's a computer scientist specializing in AI. His sincere prediction is that computers will conquer humanity. He is joining experimental surgeries to implant electronics into his brain but there are some unexpected complications.

This is a Michael Crichton book. The prolific writer has some big ideas but it takes a good adaptation to inject a compelling narrative. This movie doesn't have that. The story is drawn-out and slow-moving. The surgery takes forever and generates little tension. The second half tries to turn into something else. By then, most people would have probably already lost interest. This movie may work better if it skips a lot of the surgery minutia. The story may have some social commentary to make but it's just too darn slow.

A Major disappointment. No longer intriguing. I hated it!

[mike48128 · 6/10 · 22 January 2017]

Said to be one of Michael Creighton's least-favorite novels. Much changed from the book, including the ending. Poor George Segal. He plays a man with a rare kind of epilepsy that causes him to become psychotic, violent, and an amnesiac. To my knowledge, there is no such type, and the American Epilepsy Foundation condemned this film! Richard Dyshart throws up before he performs the surgery; not a good sign. Much professional criticism in the film citing mind-control by computers and such science-fiction Mumbo-Jumbo. It appears to be highly edited for content and screen time before release. An almost bloodless brain operation. The wiring goes wrong and his brain tries to create more seizures, as one of the electrodes stimulates his brain's "pleasure center". His girlfriend helps him break out of the hospital. He is armed with a gun and a blonde wig. Brief nudity in the strip club. He goes on a killing rampage. After this point, the film is no longer fascinating or intriguing. It becomes a tedious paint-by-the-numbers ho-hum non-thriller. He violently murders both his girlfriend and a Catholic Priest. He finds his way to Dr. Ross' (Joan Hackett) apartment, and it appears for a moment that he is going to go after her "Psycho Style" in her shower. He never gets inside the bathroom. The door stops him. In my house, the door would have crumbled like balsa wood. She stabs him in the chest with a kitchen knife and he ends up in a freshly-dug grave in a Catholic Cemetery. The Swat Team shoots him. I would have had him short-circuit and jump out the apartment window, in the stark realization that the operation (and the movie) were both failures!

The Terminal Movie

[mm-39 · 1/10 · 20 September 2002]

A terminal movie destine for mediocrity; this is the perfect one out of ten. Slow describes the pace, and the film never picks up. The acting, and directing is good, but with no story these attributes were wasted. This boring film must be fast forward or I would have shut it off. Awful movie, avoid this one with a passion 1/10

Much better than given credit for

[tuttt · 9/10 · 26 April 2008]

This is a superior film with brilliant set design and costuming. From the sterility of the Hospital (known only as "Babel" from the subtly placed and nearly invisible emblems), to the mind-numbing anonymity of the staff uniforms, few films are as well dressed as this. Only the dissenting staff, Dr's Ross and Manon, show any hint of individuality in their work apparel. Ironically it is Benson the patient, supposedly insane, who displays the most humanity of all, with the possible exception of Dr. Ross. Segal was brilliant, and severely under-utilized in the film. Perhaps the filmmakers thought it necessary to de-emphasize Benson, in order to illustrate the dehumanization of the hospital and its staff. But a bit more contrast could have been provided IMO. Still, the film is excellent nonetheless.

Today's audiences however, with their short attention spans, will likely be permanently disappointed. To those who complain that this film is "slow" (and they are legion); I would say to either learn some patience, or simply avoid the film and go back to watching action/adventure.

While made in the early 1970's, it is highly relevant to today's world as well. Replace the "wires in the brain" with today's over-prescribed Ritalin, SSRI's, and other similar drugs, and you will see the point.

This is an excellent movie which deserves to be on DVD, with commentary by Crichton, Hodges and/or Segal. They are all still with us as of 4/2008 (Sadly Ms. Hackett is not). The sooner the better.

The always eponymous Warner Bros. warn the USA of a nefarious . . .

[oscaralbert · 7/10 · 10 November 2018]

. . . KGB Red Commie plot in TERMINAL MAN. "Harry Benson" serves as Warner's title character here. Warner's prognosticators use TERMINAL MAN to issue a dire warning about the known status and direction of the KGB human mind control experiments in the 1970s. (Most of TERMINAL MAN takes place in "Babel" hospital, which is the Russian word for "American mole.") TERMINAL MAN tries to anticipate the sort of test subject Russia would select to ruin America. Harry is a total misogynist said in this flick's expository dialog to have raped a wife. He's shown to assault all of the other women pictured here, including a California shrink and a Golden State stripper. TERMINAL MAN's prophecies about Russia's future Top Level U.S. mole have turned out to be "spot on," as James Bond would say. Court documents state that Russia's current Real Life Quisling raped his second wife, he's now being sued by several strippers, and he's just finished a hectic month of verbally assaulting a lady shrink originally from California. What do Warner Bros. and TERMINAL MAN suggest be done with such a malignant Russian pawn? (Don't forget that in Real Life he's threatening our entire nation; not just the caravan of Spanish-speaking people shown symbolically "invading" a Golden State cemetery by Warner's clairvoyant seers at the end of TERMINAL MAN.) Find out the answer to this pressing question for yourself by viewing the finale of TERMINAL MAN.

Inane plotting spoils good idea

[imlong54 · 3/10 · 22 January 2017]

I just watched this on TCM based on some of the "lost 70's classic" recommendations posted on here. It's not that the movie is too slow, as some have suggested, it's that it doesn't make any sense. Even 40 years ago the police would have been able to find the stripper girl friends apartment BEFORE he murders her and even if they failed at that, which is highly unlikely, they would have been watching his workplace to ensure he didn't return there. It doesn't seem to me that any rational thought was given as to the character motivations. What police guard would not report a missing inmate immediately? I will admit that George Segal gives a very good performance as do other cast members but it's all for naught given the ridiculous plotting.