You ever see a movie that makes you wonder if the director was trying to lull you into a coma? Well, folks, welcome to The Terminal Man (1974), a film that takes a dynamite premise—science, paranoia, and a brain-hacked George Segal—and somehow makes it feel like a slow afternoon at the DMV. Directed by Mike Hodges, this was supposed to be a chilling cautionary tale about technology gone rogue. Instead, it’s a masterclass in how to make a thriller without thrills, a horror movie that mostly horrifies your patience. But hey, it’s not all bad—if you squint, you can see the makings of something brilliant buried under the sterile hospital lighting and glacial pacing.
A Story Too Smart for Its Own Good
The film is based on Michael Crichton’s The Terminal Man, a novel written by a man who somehow predicted Jurassic Park, AI takeovers, and corporate espionage before the rest of us even figured out how to program a VCR. Naturally, Warner Bros. thought they had a surefire hit—what could go wrong with a story about a guy whose brain is wired to a machine that controls his seizures, only to have it turn him into a blackout-prone murder machine? Turns out, quite a bit.
Crichton was originally hired to write the script, which makes sense since, you know, he wrote the book. But Hollywood, in all its wisdom, decided that his own adaptation didn’t stick to the source material enough. Imagine writing a novel, being asked to adapt it, then being told, Nah, this isn’t quite right, pal. So, Crichton got the boot, and another writer took over. The final product is technically faithful to the novel but lacks the kind of propulsive energy that made Crichton’s work so gripping. It’s like reading a medical textbook written in Latin—informative, maybe, but good luck staying awake.
Casting, Production, and the Art of Making a Thrill-Free Thriller
Then we come to the casting. George Segal plays Harry Benson, our unfortunate techno-guinea pig. Now, Segal was a fine actor, known more for light comedy than dark sci-fi, which made this an inspired, if not entirely successful, choice. He spends most of the film alternating between blank stares and sudden bouts of violence, which, ironically, is also how audiences probably felt watching it. Joan Hackett plays his psychiatrist, Dr. Janet Ross, and she does her best to inject some humanity into this clinical fever dream. The supporting cast, including Richard Dysart and Donald Moffat, are all pros, but the material doesn’t give them much to chew on.
Visually, the film should be interesting. Director Mike Hodges (Get Carter) aimed for a stark, sterile look, inspired by the paintings of Edward Hopper. And you do see that influence—lonely corridors, empty city streets, a creeping sense of isolation. The problem is that while Hopper’s paintings evoke a feeling, The Terminal Man mostly evokes the feeling of waiting at a bus stop in the rain. Even when Benson goes on his inevitable rampage, it feels strangely muted, like watching a security camera feed of a crime that happened yesterday.
Critical Reception: Too Smart, Too Slow, Too… Something?
So, how did audiences and critics take to this high-minded exercise in controlled sedation? Not well. The film was dumped in the U.S. after a disastrous preview screening where the first ten minutes were projected without sound—which, honestly, might have made the movie more exciting. Critics, for the most part, eviscerated it. Nora Sayre of The New York Times called it slow and lifeless, which is a polite way of saying, “Why did I sit through this?” Audiences also weren’t sold—partly because Segal was still known for comedy, partly because the marketing was a mess, and partly because it’s just not a crowd-pleaser.
But here’s the twist: The Terminal Man found some high-profile fans. Stanley Kubrick, the grandmaster of slow, cerebral cinema, reportedly loved it. Terrence Malick even wrote a gushing letter to Hodges about how profound it was. This is the kind of film that film school professors pretend to like while their students struggle to stay awake through it.
Legacy: A Cult Classic That’s Still Kind of a Drag
Over time, the film has earned a little more respect. Some critics have revisited it and found merit in its icy aesthetics and ahead-of-its-time themes about technology and the human mind. In a way, it was prophetic—electrode implants, neural interfaces, AI-controlled medicine, all of it has become very real. If this movie were remade today (hopefully with a better editor), it might actually work.
But as it stands? The Terminal Man is a frustrating watch. It has moments of brilliance buried under layers of sterile, methodical pacing. It’s a film that wants to be 2001: A Space Odyssey but plays more like a hospital instructional video. Three stars for ambition, cinematography, and the guts to make a bleak sci-fi thriller this unrelentingly bleak. But if you’re looking for fun, tension, or even a pulse… well, you might want to reboot elsewhere.
What do you think—underrated sci-fi gem or a cinematic sedative? Would you give The Terminal Man another shot, or is one viewing terminal enough?
⭐️⭐️⭐️ (3/5)
#MindControl #SciFiMissedOpportunity #KubrickLikedIt #CrichtonGotFired #SlowBurnOrJustSlow
No comments:
Post a Comment