Charly (1968) Reviews

Charly (1968)
Member Rating:  
In 1961, Cliff Robertson starred in The Two Worlds of Charley Gordon, a TV adaptation of Daniel Keyes' story Flowers for Algernon. Determined not to lose out on the film version of this play as he'd done with Days of Wine and Roses, Robertson bought up the movie rights to Keyes' story so that he and he alone would star. This determination paid off in the form of the Best Actor Academy Award for Robertson in 1968. The star plays Charly, a 30-year-old mentally retarded bakery worker. Neurosurgeon Dr. Richard Nemur (Leon Janney) and psychiatrist Dr. Anna Straus (Lilia Skala) approach Charly and ask him to participate in an experiment. Previously, Dr. Nemur was able to accelerate the intelligence of a mouse named Algernon by performing a radical new form of brain surgery; could not such a procedure work on a human being? As a result, Charly not only achieves normal intelligence, but also becomes a genius. Emboldened by his new mental status, Charly proposes marriage to his very receptive special-ed teacher (Claire Bloom). Alas, Charly notices that Algernon has begun to regress, and he reasons that he also will return to his old developmentally challenged state. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

 Read More


Starring:
Cliff Robertson, Claire Bloom, (more)
Director(s):
Ralph Nelson
Theatrical MPAA Rating:
PG
Format(s):
DVD
View All Versions to rent and buy
 
 
 
 
 
 

Average Ratings

(29 member reviews)  

Member Reviews

JohnK W.

I saw this as a kid, and wanted to see it again. I wish a lot of our movies today, can go back with some new ideas not shown in other movies. It is a reason I like to watch M. Night's movies. Great original ideas and they are all different. A bit dated, but good acting. It reminded me a bit of the movie Awakenings that came out years later.

Yes   |   No


Cd S.

Typically seen as a drama it really is science fiction. The story is about a man who is mentally challenged that endures an operation and treatments that enhance his intellect to amazing lengths. It is also about the people in his life and how this effects them as well. This is not a sophisticated, action packed, effects riddled film. If one needs that for entertainment this film will not be enjoyed. More recentt adaptaions of the book (Flowers For Algernon) have not been as good in my opinion - but then again NONE of them compare to the book. If after watching the film you find you liked it you should read the book. Oh, yes, this IS Cliff Robertson's best work.

Yes   |   No


John H.

The ethical issues presented in this film are timeless. Each character has his own agenda, and it is easy to find the villain(s), as well as the saint(s). As usual, the scientific community blusters that it knows all, but either it doesn't, or carefully hides some information so as to appear innocent when some grand scheme, base on some questionable "scientific finding" goes awry.... Good flick!

Yes   |   No


Joseph B. F.

Puts the viewer in Charly's shoes and makes one realize how lucky we are to be (what is considered) normal.

Yes   |   No


Schuyler S.

Interesting point of view through transgression and regression. Loved the last scene.

Yes   |   No


Ted S.

.

Yes   |   No


Deanna N.

Nothing spectacular. Just so-so. I would skip it if I were you. You wouldn't be missing anything worthwhile. I was disappointed.

Yes   |   No


Tina Y.

The book is much better as is its biographical sequel as to how Daniel Keys got the idea for Flower for Algernon. I have had the priviledge of talking to him, and he was no all that upset about the movie rendition, but the movie offered no hope. Mr. Keyes wanted his books to give hope, not just leave blank spaces in peoples lives.

Yes   |   No


LEI DAVID C.

The point of Flowers for Algernon, the book that "Charly" is based on, is that a person could never go back to a life of ignorant bliss once he has tasted enlightenment; that'd he'd forever live with the sorrow of what he had lost even if he no longer had the capacity to comprehend it. The end of this movie doesn't capture that depth, and that's why this movie blows.

Yes   |   No


Shane C.

Wanted to check it out after seeing an episode of NewsRadio that parodied this. It's ok. Just too much dumb dumb acting before he gets smart and then it's predictable. Bottom line: Better than Lawnmower Man.

Yes   |   No


 
 
 

BY MAIL

Monthly Subscription
NEW! 7 - Day Rental
No subscription required. Usually ships in 24 hours.
 
Buy New  $10.99
 

IN-STORE

 

What's Your Take?

Add to FavoritesIn Favorites  |  Share:     Email to a friendShare on FacebookShare on Twitter
    YOUR REVIEW
    WRITE A REVIEW
     
    1000 
     
    Member Reviews
    Read all (29)
     
    JohnK W.

    I saw this as a kid, and wanted to see it again. I wish a lot of our movies today, can go back with some new ideas not shown in other movies. It is a reason I like to watch M. Night's movies. Great original ideas and they are all different. A bit dated, but good acting. It reminded me a bit of the movie Awakenings that came out years later.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Cd S.

    Typically seen as a drama it really is science fiction. The story is about a man who is mentally challenged that endures an operation and treatments that enhance his intellect to amazing lengths. It is also about the people in his life and how this effects them as well. This is not a sophisticated, action packed, effects riddled film. If one needs that for entertainment this film will not be enjoyed. More recentt adaptaions of the book (Flowers For Algernon) have not been as good in my opinion - but then again NONE of them compare to the book. If after watching the film you find you liked it you should read the book. Oh, yes, this IS Cliff Robertson's best work.

    Yes   |   No

     
    John H.

    The ethical issues presented in this film are timeless. Each character has his own agenda, and it is easy to find the villain(s), as well as the saint(s). As usual, the scientific community blusters that it knows all, but either it doesn't, or carefully hides some information so as to appear innocent when some grand scheme, base on some questionable "scientific finding" goes awry.... Good flick!

    Yes   |   No

     
    Read All 29 Reviews
       

      Quick Links

      Email Exclusives

      Find Us Online: BLOCKBUSTER Blog - BLOCKBUSTER Widgets - BLOCKBUSTER RSS FEED - BLOCKBUSTER Facebook Page - BLOCKBUSTER Twitter Page - BLOCKBUSTER Wiki

      FIND MOVIES

      ALL MOVIES

      Popular | # | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

      ALL ACTORS AND DIRECTORS

      Popular | # | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

      BLOCKBUSTER CORPORATE

       

      BLOCKBUSTER name, design and related marks are trademarks of Blockbuster L.L.C. © 2012 Blockbuster L.L.C. All rights reserved.

      Portions of Content Provided by Rovi Corporation. © 2012 Rovi Corporation.