Customer Reviews

Charly [VHS]

5 star:		(36)
4 star:		(25)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Charly (Cliff Robertson) is thirty years old and has the mental age of a young child. He works at a menial job where he is tormented endlessly, and he isn't progressing in his special night school. His teacher, Alice (Claire Bloom), recommends him to a clinic where an experimental operation has radically increased the intelligence of a lab mouse named Algernon. After Charly undergoes surgery, his mental ability starts to soar past normal to the genius level. He and Alice fall in love and make plans for the future, until, sadly, he learns one more thing from Algernon.

Robertson earned an Academy Award for his stunning portrayal of the gentle, childlike man whose life changes completely. He is a mature and charismatic actor and gives a memorable performance. Claire Bloom is also wonderful as his teacher. The script is excellent, never overly-sentimental and always literate and thought-provoking. I recommend this timeless classic as an example of how good movies used to be made.

Cliff Robertson won the Academy Award for best actor with his excellent portrayal of Charly Gordon. It takes an actor with great versatility to first play a mentally-challenged man and then turn around and portray a surgically-transformed genius; Robertson fills the bill with great satisfaction. To fully appreciate the quality of this film, a great suggestion would be to first read the short story titled "Flowers for Algernon" on which this movie is based.

This is a somewhat disappointing adaptation of the wonderful book, "Flowers for Algernon", by Daniel Keyes. This is not to say that Cliff Robertson's performance in the title role of Charly Gordon, a gentle, mentally challenged person, is not Oscar worthy. It is, and he deservedly won the Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Charly Gordon. Claire Bloom is also noteworthy for her performance as Charly's teacher and love interest, Alice Kinian. The problem with this film lies in the screenplay and direction of the film.

The storyline is simple enough. Charly Gordon, a gentle, mentally challenged soul with a thirst for knowledge, attends night school in an effort to get smart. His teacher is Alice Kinian, a sensitive and caring person, who recognizes Charly's determination, as well as his limitations. She takes an interest in him and refers him to an institute that has been doing research in increasing the intelligence of laboratory mice through neurosurgery and is now on the cusp of attempting that experimental neorosurgery on humans. The institute is in the process of selecting candidates for its clinical trials.

Charly goes to the institute where he undergoes a battery of tests and has his capability for problem solving compared to that of a laboratory mouse named Algernon, whose intelligence has been surgically enhanced. After much deliberation, the institute decides to take Charly on as a human guinea pig, after Ms. Kinian eloquently persuades them that Charly's determination and sweet disposition should overcome the fact that he is below the threshold level of intelligence that they were looking for in a human subject.

Charly undergoes the neurosurgery which initially appears to be a success. He gets smart, very smart. The inevitable romance with Ms. Kinian follows, as Charly exceeds all expectations. It is here that the film begins to fall apart and takes a swan dive. In an effort to show the changes in Charly's life, the film shows a collage of stills and scenes of Charly and Ms. Kinian that are ludicrous and almost embarrassing. They are presented in a fashion that is best described as psychedelic. It is done so poorly, as to make the film lose credibility, and it is downhill from there on, as the story becomes one dimensional. The screenplay writer and director should have stuck to the book, both in story and in theme, remembering that you can't fix what ain't broke.

Still, Cliff Robertson's performance, as well as that of Claire Bloom, is worth watching. If you have already read the book, however, prepare to be disappointed. If you have not read the book, as yet, watch the movie first, and then read the book.

This is an outstanding movie--probably one of the best of all time--and who CARES if that's because the screenplay was adapted from an even better book? Aren't movies usually disappointing compared to the book when it's a bookworm doing the review? The MOVIE is what's being reviewed here. IMHO, reviews based on "the book is better" should be automatically deleted.

Having said that, don't miss Cliff Robertson's outstanding performance in this heart-wrenching tale of a mentally challenged adult who overcomes his disability by receiving experimental surgery, only to be disappointed with the outcome, both in ways that have already been spoiled by others here and in other ways I will not spoil myself. It is a classic tale with the best elements of theatre. If it helps to understand, this movie would be just as outstanding if it were a filmed version of Cliff Robertson in a stage play. I assure you that if you're mature and like insightful movies, you'll enjoy this movie. I don't know how good the book is, because I haven't read it, but this is a movie review.

Taken from the book Flowers for Algernon, the movie "Charly" is of course not going to be an exact retelling of the book, as no movie is. Since the book was written in the fifties and the movie made in the sixties, the movie puts a certain spin on it that could only have been used in the sixties, with split-screens, running down endless hallways, and even a neon "LOVE" sign at one point. This may take a little away from the book's message. The movie also fails to deal with Charlie's sexual problems, making his romance with Alice Kinnian, which did happen in the book, an instant story of too-mushy true love, rather than the book's description of Charlie's tortured longing for a real relationship while he remains emotionally a child, even as a genius. Alice mentions something in the movie about not being able to keep up with Charlie's intellect, which is much more of a conflict in the book. In this change they also eliminate the entire conflict with Charlie's family, especially his mother, which was quite vital to the storyline in the book. The movie, when not compared with the book, is melodramatic and the transitions from retardate to genius and back again are shown poorly, with little of the emotional perspective that could have been very exciting. However, Robertson's Oscar was not undeserved, as he manages to play Charlie well with both too low and too high an IQ, and shows his indignance well when Charlie realizes those he thought were friends treated him as less than human while he laughed along. I think the first part of the movie, where Charlie struggles to be accepted for the experiment, is more heartwarming than the rest of it up to the very end. The scientific convention is handled vaguely and shortly. However, all in all, I think that without my frustration at its difference from the novel, it would have been averagely entertaining, with some high points.

True, this movie may be outdated in relation to the 90's era of science and technology, but it still remains one of those few films which produce an inner desire for learning and love. Robertson and his co-stars provide a great acting performance. The director did a fine job in taking the book, "Flowers for Algernon", and making it actually better when seen on film. This movie really hits the heart as few do. It also sets off a catalyst of desire for educational achievement. Spielburg and Tom Hanks could put together a brilliant remake of this today. Buy this movie. It is one of the best.

This is a somewhat disappointing adaptation of the wonderful book, "Flowers for Algernon", by Daniel Keyes. This is not to say that Cliff Robertson's performance in the title role of Charly Gordon, a gentle, mentally challenged person, is not Oscar worthy. It is, and he deservedly won the Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Charly Gordon. Claire Bloom is also noteworthy for her performance as Charly's teacher and love interest, Alice Kinian. The problem with this film lies in the screenplay and direction of the film.

The storyline is simple enough. Charly Gordon, a gentle, mentally challenged soul with a thirst for knowledge, attends night school in an effort to get smart. His teacher is Alice Kinian, a sensitive and caring person, who recognizes Charly's determination, as well as his limitations. She takes an interest in him and refers him to an institute that has been doing research in increasing the intelligence of laboratory mice through neurosurgery and is now on the cusp of attempting that experimental neurosurgery on humans. The institute is in the process of selecting candidates for its clinical trials.

Charly goes to the institute where he undergoes a battery of tests and has his capability for problem solving compared to that of a laboratory mouse named Algernon, whose intelligence has been surgically enhanced. After much deliberation, the institute decides to take Charly on as a human guinea pig, after Ms. Kinian eloquently persuades them that Charly's determination and sweet disposition should overcome the fact that he is below the threshold level of intelligence that they were looking for in a human subject.

Charly undergoes neurosurgery, which initially appears to be a success. He gets smart, very smart. The inevitable romance with Ms. Kinian follows, as Charly exceeds all expectations. It is here that the film begins to fall apart and takes a swan dive. In an effort to show the changes in Charly's life, the film shows a collage of stills and scenes of Charly and Ms. Kinian that are ludicrous and almost embarrassing. They are presented in a fashion that is best described as psychedelic. It is done so poorly, as to make the film lose credibility, and it is downhill from there on, as the story becomes one dimensional. The screenplay writer and director should have stuck to the book, both in story and in theme, remembering that you can't fix what ain't broke.

Still, Cliff Robertson's performance, as well as that of Claire Bloom, is worth watching. If you have already read the book, however, prepare to be disappointed. If you have not read the book, as yet, watch the movie first, and then read the book.

I found both the short story, "Flowers for Algernon," and this film adaptation of it to be moving; but the experimental cinematography and somewhat immature storytelling of the screenplay at times made me squirm. The film is almost interesting in itself as a sort of time capsule of 1968 moviemaking; but in the end I think it rests on the strength of the original story and the sincere (if somewhat hokey by today's standards) performance by Robertson to make the movie work in spite of itself. Those plusses weren't enough, obviously, to save the film from obscurity; and it seems odd in an age of remakes that this gem hasn't been targeted for a modern reprise. It could certainly be done better with today's techniques and the maturity of the medium. Bottom line, it's worth renting, but I don't know if I'd want to own it.

This is an outstanding movie--probably one of the best of all time--and who CARES if that's because the screenplay was adapted from an even better book? Aren't movies usually disappointing compared to the book when it's a bookworm doing the review? The MOVIE is what's being reviewed here. IMHO, reviews based on "the book is better" should be automatically deleted.

Having said that, don't miss Cliff Robertson's outstanding performance in this heart-wrenching tale of a mentally challenged adult who overcomes his disability by receiving experimental surgery, only to be disappointed with the outcome, both in ways that have already been spoiled by others here and in other ways I will not spoil myself. It is a classic tale with the best elements of theatre. If it helps to understand, this movie would be just as outstanding if it were a filmed version of Cliff Robertson in a stage play. I assure you that if you're mature and like insightful movies, you'll enjoy this movie. I don't know how good the book is, because I haven't read it, but this is a movie review.

This DVD has both the full screen 1.33 version and widescreen 2.35 version. So, there's no need to cry foul.