IMDb user comments for
Charly (1968)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

43 comments in total

---

14 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Amazing, 30 September 2002

Author: batsy108 from PA, USA

I saw this film when I was about 10 and then I saw it again recently. It is one of the most poignant, beautiful movies ever made. The way Charly's retardation is handled by both the director and the brilliant Cliff Robertson is able to show the desperation and ignorance of Charly. His want for "smarts" is treated with compassion and not contempt. Compared to the book, "Flowers for Algernon", Charly does not completely hold up, nor should it. It uses the premise and message of the book to illustrate the humanity in the mentally retarded. The movie's message made me very sad and understanding to the plight of the mentally handicapped, as it did my fellow viewers. This film is the best way to teach a person why it is wrong to use "retarded" as a negative insult. See this film and you will learn about yourself.

---

16 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
A warm yet cautionary tale, 28 February 1999
Author: anonymous

A mildly mentally retarded man submits to a scientific experiment to increase his intelligence. Like "Frankenstein", "Charly" is a clever morality play about science that crosses certain boundaries. Unlike "Frankenstein", which took the horror route, "Charly" explores the emotional human tragedy that inevitably occurs when an experiment of this nature goes awry.

Many scientists back then and even today argue that the professional boundaries that were crossed in this story would never happen in real life. Yet with the recent successful gene manipulation and cloning experiments many believe it is only a matter of time, a very short time, before a human submits to such experiments.

The movie, of course, is not this clinical. Based on the classic novel, "Flowers for Algernon", the movie strikes a keen balance of warmth, comedy and tragedy. Cliff Robertson's fascinating portrayal of the main character is unforgettable. His delivery of the powerful speech at the scientific convention is just as stunning and eerily accurate today as it was over thirty years ago.

An emotional, touching drama, "Charley" still rings a cautionary bell. One that should be heard and not ignored as we enter the new millennium.

---

11 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
A beautiful film, 27 May 2006

Author: waynepenner

"I want to be smarter, just so I could get a little closer, you know?" Charly Gordon

Made in the days when doctors smoked cigarettes, this is Cliff Robertson's brilliant portrayal of a man isolated from society by an IQ of 69 who through a brain operation becomes a genius.

Robertson won a well-deserved Oscar for Best Actor in 1968 for his part in this wonderful and inspiring film, and it's a great movie, albeit on a "b-movie" budget. But entwined in its message is a dark reflection on how society treats people who are mentally handicapped.

Charly is the nicest guy you would ever meet, considerate of all, kind, but simple and naïve. Everyone around him either laughs at him or is condescending toward him. No one sees him as a man, not even a human being, just whatever they label him as - "dumb-assed janitor", or just plain "moron". Then he gets his operation and becomes the smartest man on Earth, but still he is labeled, and still he is isolated.

What I got most from this film is not a clinical study of mental retardation but the way society deals with mental retardation, and in this the film soars, and it will bring a tear or two if you have even a bit of humanity. It is a wonderful film, on many levels, testing us all on how we deal with those who are so unfortunate as to be mentally handicapped.

In "Charly", society doesn't win in the end, but the movie does! 9 out of 10.

---

11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Flowers for Charly, too, 11 June 2002
Author: wry-catcher from Rabun Gap, Georgia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Contains Spoilers

Charly, a movie directed by Ralph Nelson in 1968 and adapted from the novel Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes, is a moving case study of what could happen to a mentally retarded person who suddenly becomes a genius. Cliff Robertson won an Academy Award for Best Actor as he portrays Charly Gordon, a 30 year retarded man who has an IQ of 56. Charly's life is a simple one, yet he continually strives to improve it both socially and intellectually.

As the movie begins, Charly is working as a janitor in a bakery and going to night classes. In the evening, where Charly attends school, he is selected to participate in an experimental scientific research project that will improve his intellect. His teacher, Alice Kinnian, played by Claire Bloom, is very protective of Charly and he, as her pupil, does everything she asks of him. Prior to the surgery, Charly competes against a mouse, Algernon, to see who can get to the center of a maze first. Charly is dismayed when the Algernon wins and, when he finds out that Algernon beat him because he has already undergone the experimental surgery, Charly decides that he wants to have the surgery too.

During the day, Charly does his best to fit in with the other employees at work. Unfortunately, they see Charly as a good-natured moron and they constantly find ways to tease and humiliate Charly. It seems that they do not think that they are harming him, as he appears oblivious to the fact that they are using him for their own amusement. One scene that stands out is when they allow him to work one of the machines and the dough in it overflows. As Charly tries to push it back into the machine, he gets completely covered by the dough. After his surgery, this scene is dramatically juxtaposed against a similar one as he unwittingly humiliates them when one of their schemes backfire because he learns how to operate a similar machine in a few minutes.

Together, these two scenes create the most poignant moments in the film, in my opinion. While they laugh heartily at Charly's failures, they are dumbfounded and disheartened at his success. I believe that they felt better about themselves when they felt superior to Charly. However, when they could no longer make him the butt of their jokes, they become almost fearful of him and he loses their friendship. This is a very dramatic way of saying that it is very lonely at the top and gives insight to how those who are intellectually gifted are treated and how they feel. To further illustrate this, Charly is dismissed from his job after he shows the plant manager how the bakery could save a lot of money by improving its production. Just as the other employees became wary after Charly's intellect blossoms, the manager seems equally threatened by Charly and fires him.

Charly's intellect grows, he becomes an insatiable learner and reads books by the dozens. He also becomes enamored with his teacher, but he is emotionally unprepared when she refuses his advances. In dealing with this rejection, Charly leaves town and travels all over the country on a motorcycle, encountering many different types of experiences so that he can mature emotionally. Eventually, he wins over his teacher and they begin a romantic relationship.

Upon his return to town, he is informed that Algernon has lost his intellectual capacity and, ultimately, died. Knowing that this will happen to him as well, Charly embarks on a quest to prevent this from happening. He learns everything that the doctors know and begins his own research. Unfortunately, he discovers that it is not possible to inhibit the reversal of the downward process his intellect will experience. As he acknowledges that his own demise is inevitable, we are left to reflect upon whether each of us would want to be a shining star for a fleeting moment or a dusty moon that only reflects others' light.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing, 29 April 2006

Author: Bob-45 from Savannah, GA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Having read the original short story (A Hugo winner, I believe) as a youth, and having just missed the US Steel Hour live production (It was on at 10:00, right after my bedtime), I really looked forward to seeing the film version of "Flowers for Algernon". The original short story is brilliantly a brilliantly written "diary," Charly Gordon's chronicle of a man who's IQ is more than tripled by a medical treatment. The film, admittedly captures that spirit, even though it's ends differently.

WARNING: SPOILER

In the short story, Algernon dies and the doctors discover during the autopsy that Algernon's brain has become perfectly smooth. So, Charly doesn't just revert to his former self, he faces dieing as a "vegatable."

END OF SPOILER

Ralph Nelson is clearly the wrong director for "Charly." Nelson can be brilliant ("Lillies of the Field," "Soldier in the Rain," "Requiem for a Heavyweight"), but his color work is, to be generous, less than stellar. Cliff Robertson "created" the role of "Charly Gordon" on the "US Steel Hour," garnering an Emmy nomination in the process. However, I was surprised and disappointed to find this fine actor unconvincing as a mentally challenged individual. His "Charly Gordon" is far too studied and lacks, most importantly, the dullness in the eyes one sees in virtually all mentally challenged individuals. Lon Chaney, Jr. in "Of Mice and Men," Peter Sellers in "Being There," Juliette Lewis in "The Other Sister" and John Mills in "Ryan's Daughter" were far more convincing, just to name a few. Robertson beat Peter O'Toole and Ron Moody for the Oscar, and both were clearly better. Even worse, actress Claire Bloom lacks chemistry as Robertson's love interest. Clearly, she needed to show more passion and sexual tension with Robertson, and Ralph Nelson fails to exploit that angle during the sluggish first two thirds. However, Robertson handles "brilliant" far better than he does "retarded," and his transformation is handled beautifully and profoundly. Unfortunately, Nelson then resorts to the tired, dated split screen effect to summarize much of the final third. What is genuinely praiseworthy in Charly is Lilia Skala's fine performance and Arthur Ornitz's extraordinary cinematography.

I give "Charly" a "6". I just wish it could be a "10".

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
excellent sci-fi film, 7 September 2005
Author: Stanley Strangelove from Portland, Oregon US

Charly is a very touching sci-fi film about a retarded man Charly Gordon (Cliff Robertson) who can barely perform the menial job of sweeping up in a bakery and is the continual butt of jokes and ridicule by the bakers. He is chosen to participate in an experiment and is given treatments to boost his IQ. Alice Kinninan (Claire Bloom) plays one of the scientists who helps Charly to learn. Charly is based on the story Flowers For Algernon and the screenplay was by Stirling Silliphant (In The Heat of the Night.) Cliff Robertson won a best actor Oscar for Charly. The film is intelligent, poignant, and extremely moving. You'll need a box a Kleenex with your popcorn for this one.

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Sometimes a Deal Too Good to Be True Is., 13 August 2004
Author: tfrizzell from United States

Strange little over-achiever has that 1960s psycho-crazed style that seems a bit over the top and sometimes like a lot of overkill. A mentally challenged man (Oscar-winner Cliff Robertson) tries to improve his intelligence with the help of a beautiful doctor (Claire Bloom) and experimental scientists who have successfully increased the thought capabilities of a lab mouse. Soon Robertson is to be their guinea pig, but could it be possible that the treatment might make the titled character too smart? And is the experiment as perfect as it seems on first glance? Robertson's dynamic role is the true key to this tone-deaf curiosity as he literally plays his part as multiple personalities. Everything else, including the direction and the script, is just window-dressing. The movie wants to question the relationship between God and science but its style makes that potential point go flying out the window. The possible romantic connection between Robertson and Bloom feels forced and detrimental to the overall effectiveness of the picture. 4 stars out of 5.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
An extremely thought-provoking, moving experience, 11 November 2006

Author: carolyn_davis2 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I read Daniel Keyes' book, *Flowers for Algernon,* when aged nine and few books before or since have affected me as much. Surgical experimentation is frequently controversial and can be devastating in its consequences. Beyond the ethical issues are Algernon and Charly, one a mouse, the other, human, who are affected by a particular experiment -- Charly, especially, in a multitude of ways.

Robertson does extremely well in a particularly complex role. Throughout we see his humanity. His "transformation" is believable, and by the actor's skill, Charly is portrayed as a sympathetic Everyman in an extraordinary situation.

I give this film the highest recommendation.

---

12 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Cliff Robertson's superb performance...score: 8 (out of 10)., 16 August 1999
Author: Bill Kelly (kellyw01@tigger.stcloudstate.edu) from USA

Before there was "Awakenings" (1990) and "Good Will Hunting" (1997), there was a sincere, sad, and bittersweet film called "Charly" (1968). The film is based on the book "The Two Worlds of Charly Gordon." Cliff Robertson delivers a brilliant performance as a mentally retarded man who becomes a genius through scientific experiments. Claire Bloom is Charly's social worker (and love interest). The film is directed by Ralph Nelson ("Lillies of the Field"). score: 8 (out of 10).

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
You will never ever forget this movie, 6 October 2005

Author: Des Byrne from Ireland

I saw this movie on TV when I was a child and while I don't remember every single plot detail, overall it made a lasting impression on me. So much so that I have been determined all these years to try and see this movie again.

I stumbled across the movie on TV and I clearly remember the highly emotional impact it made on me.

Thanks to IMDb I was able to keep searching for the title as I could best remember it and was thrilled when I discovered it here.

A truly stunning memorable movie - I only wish I could get it on DVD. Highly recommended.

When I think of all the dross I have watched over the years that is so forgettable, it is wonderful to return and discover a movie that captivate me so long ago and discover that I am not alone in rating it 10 out of 10!

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history