Coventry 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.

Tango and Cash 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.

raypdaley182 Segal plays a man who has had an accident and suffered some sort of cranial injury (I'm sorry Micheal Crichton, It really isn't explained well enough in my opinion). He is then subjected to a pioneering new medical treatment previously only ever tried on monkeys.This is where the film falls down. Has Micheal never heard of all the testing, trials and licensing procedures that drugs and medical procedures have to go through. So basically the entire idea for the plot is scuppered right away before the movie even really gets a chance to start.The film pursues the idea anyway, and Segal has a micro implant into his brain to control impulses that cause him want to kill.Yep, of course it fails and the implant starts giving him the impulses. Segal escapes the hospital after his operation (how is he even able to do anything after major surgery on his brain?) he starts having attacks and kills his girlfriend and runs off on a frenetic killing frenzy. his implant is being monitored and the scientists are able to predict when he will strike but not where. (surely the nuclear implant would have been traceable?) finally after killing a priest Segal thinks about killing himself and finds himself in a cemetery (didn't understand how he got here either) and falls into an open grave but is carrying a pistol. he has a seemingly fatal fit but is near catatonic - not dead. the police kill him despite the fact he has dropped his gun (the marksman would have seen this through his telescopic sight and LEGALLY could not fire his weapon so he committed murder) and the end is very bad and totally impossible to understand.are they planning to try this procedure again with another prisoner? weird but strangely watchable like THX-1138.

wilbrifar 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.