Homicides incontrôlés

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.