The Terminal Man (1974)? More like The Terminal Bore, amirite!?
After watching The Quiller Memorandum, I decided to boost my George Segal viewing experience. For too long, the bumbling boss Segal played on Just Shoot Me dominated my view of him. So, what to watch next?
How about a Segal movie based on a Michael Crichton book? Can’t go wrong with that. Crichton was a high-concept plot machine, which brings us to The Terminal Man. The film sees Segal as a brilliant scientist plagued by seizures that turn him violent. Scientists develop a cure. They will plant electrodes in Segal’s brain that will activate when a seizure strikes and render it harmless with the power of computers!
I’m sure that will work out well for everyone involved…
The Terminal Man
I read the Crichton book many moons ago. What stuck out most was the book’s reference to an experiment done on rats in the 1950s. Scientists inserted electrodes in the brains of the rodents to stimulate pleasure centers. The rats could then push a button to essentially give themselves orgasms.
Some of the rats pressed the button 7,000 times an hour and even neglected eating and drinking to keep themselves in a continual state of ecstasy.
A stripped-down version of this is what happens to Segal in The Terminal Man. His brain becomes addicted to electrode stimulation and starts having seizures at an increased rate to keep the stimulation coming. This turns Segal into a violent maniac. Basically, The Terminal Man is a high-tech werewolf tale. Segal is sympathetic until the full moon of seizures comes out. Then he kills and has no memory of what he did.
The concept sounds like it could be entertaining. It’s not. The Terminal Man is slow, overly ponderous and continually trips over its own artistic aspirations.
Terminal Man 2: Judgment Day
Mike Hodges directed The Terminal Man. He also helmed the original Get Carter, The Omen II and the cult-classic Flash Gordon. Credits like that give one hope, but Hodges fumbled the ball on The Terminal Man.
It almost seems as if Hodges knew he had a turkey on his hands, so he overcompensated by trying to make the movie auteur-like. The camera is continually intended to be a character participating in the events onscreen.
For example, 95 percent of The Terminal Man is a huddle of people conversating. Hodges positions the camera inside the huddle, so the viewer is continually looking at talking characters squeezed by the forms of other characters standing in front of the camera. One watches the movie through cracks, so to speak.
Hodges uses another odd technique. The common practice of cutting between two talking characters is this: when one character talks, they are on the left side of the screen, looking right; when the other character talks, they are on the right side of the screen, looking left. This gives the illusion of a back-and-forth between the characters.
Instead, Hodges has one character on the left side of the screen, looking left, and the other character on the right side of the screen, looking right. It is quite jarring.
Other odd choices include a group of characters speaking in whispers for no reason. Another scene on top of a roof with characters in black formal wear against a white background looks like something out of a perfume commercial. The fourth wall is also periodically broken as an eyeball looks through a peephole at the audience.
Terminal Man: Dark Fate
For whatever reason, great directors love what Hodges did in The Terminal Man.
Stanley Kubrick said, “It’s terrific!”
Terrence Malick said, “I have just come from seeing The Terminal Man and want you to know what a magnificent, overwhelming picture it is. You achieve moods that I’ve never experienced in the movies before, though it’s only in hope of finding them that I keep going. Your images make me understand what an image is, not a pretty picture but something that should pierce one through like an arrow and speak in a language all its own.”
Okay. Maybe they did like it. Or maybe Hodges was a drinking buddy, and they wanted to boost his box office. After all, what are friends for?
On the other hand, Crichton did not like the film. He was originally hired to adapt the novel, but Warner Brothers felt he departed from the source material too much.
“I don’t think they gave it a chance,” Crichton said.
Terminal Man: Salvation
On paper, The Terminal Man probably sounded like an actor’s dream to Segal. One scene sees the character acting out a series of different emotions as the scientists test the electrodes they inserted in his brain. Each electrode causes a different reaction. Likewise, the character gets to swing between friendly and psycho.
Yet, none of that plays out as interesting on screen. Part of the problem is The Terminal Man doesn’t play out like much of a story. It is a collection of flaccid events that happen while characters have conversations.
Quentin Tarantino successfully built a film around conversations with Inglorious Bastards. Hodges doesn’t even come close to what Tarantino did. The characters themselves are going nowhere. They have no real stakes in anything. They all seem to be mentally checking their watches while trying to take everything very, very seriously.
Ultimately, The Terminal Man mutes Segal rather than exalting him with a meaty performance. Plus, it makes him wear a terrible wig.
Quarantine 2: Terminal Man
Beyond Segal, The Terminal Man has a decent cast.
Joan Hackett plays Segal’s main doctor. Hackett plays the role like someone fed her way more valium than the directions on the bottle recommend. Hackett is extremely recognizable, yet I cannot place where I have seen her before even after looking at her credits. It must be her work on shows like The Alfred Hitchcock Hour and Tales of the Unexpected.
The Terminal Man also has a couple of familiar faces from The Thing. Richard Dysart and Donald Moffat star as doctors that participate in conversations. Matt Clark (every 1970s western ever) also joins in these conversations at various points.
The best thing we can say about these performances is that we hope the actors/actresses bought something nice with their paychecks.
The Terminal Bore
The Terminal Man is a slog. The plot is high-concept for sure, but the script and filmmaking make it a low-concept experience. The film reaches its lowest point at the end, literally, as Segal sunfishes at the bottom of an open grave. The scene creates sympathy, yes, but not for the character. It just makes the viewer sorry for Segal. He deserved better.
