Charly (1968)

A mentally challenged man named Charly (Cliff Robertson) desires to become smarter so that he wouldn't always be picked on by his so-called friends at his workplace. However, he has made no progress despite his efforts of going to school. One day he gets a chance to undergo some experimental brain surgery and his intelligence skyrockets, making him a genius. Still, he cannot stop feeling like an outsider or find happiness with Alice, the woman he loves (Claire Bloom).

The director uses many split screens and other alienating techniques to portray the fragile mental state of Charly; at points they get rather annoying and look dated. The montage near the end, depicting the progression of Charly and Alice's relationship, comes across as rather hasty, considering the scene directly preceding it. Mostly the story advances fine though, and the pondering about the surgery's effects on Charly's psyche is interesting – there should have been more of it, actually. Robertson's Oscar-winning performance in the lead role is decent, although I preferred his calm 'intelligent Charly' to his naïve 'challenged Charly'.

Fmovies: Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but there are many people who wish they could learn as much as anyone else. It's sad and downright tragic when you realize you're incapable of advancing common knowledge or higher education. Some are gifted, some are slow and some are just plain retarded and will never comprehend what is being taught. But what if there was a way? What if science could remedy what nature restricted in the human brain? That is the premise for the movie " Charly. " It tells the story of an adult retarded man named Charley Gordon (Cliff Robertson, 1968 Academy Award winner) who is mentally incapable of surmounting even simple challenges like spelling the word 'School.' Inside him is a deep desire to learn, but is mentally unable. That all changes when two brilliant scientists conceive of a medical procedure which can transform, first a mouse, then a human being into not only a educated individual, but a mental genius. Based on the novel "Flowers for Algernon" Cliff Robertson gives a brilliant and visually haunting performance of the retarded man who is suddenly transformed into a genius. Not only does he 'see' better than most, he's able to visualize what escapes even the most sophisticated in society. What he also sadly realizes is that 'increased intelligence equals loss of friends.' Beginning with the ability to learn and learn quickly, his advanced knowledge also unfortunately reveals his own future, a future he confronts the two doctors with. This is a must picture for anyone who'd like to see the man beat the mouse and yet have sympathy for both. A superb cast featuring Claire Bloom, Lilia Skala, Leon Janney and Dick Van Patten as Bert makes for a believable Classic movie. ****

Before watching Charly I had been told to avoid watching this film having just read the book. Of course I didn't do myself justice and decided to watch the film anyway. The film simply rushes through the whole storyline trying to fit too many themes in a minimum amount of opportunities in a mere hour and forty minutes.

As stated before the length of the film was much too short in order to get across the message in an efficient way let alone in a strong manner. This had a large indirect or maybe direct effect on the performance of that of Cliff Robertson who plays Charly. The transformation of his happens at lightning quick speed which undermines the book in not displaying the long and grueling process Charly had to face in which he was constantly being treated like a lab experiment. Also the way he deals with his feeling on loneliness and lack or respect is in no way the same as he did in the book which was much more understandable and seemingly much more realistic in the way Charly would have reacted. Instead in the movie he drives off and becomes wild and crazy without a second thought. A rushed script here leads easily to a rushed movie with glaring problems, even more so then the leading character.

Ralph Nelson, the director of this film, took the wrong approach here trying to have Charly change so drastically at such a fast pace. The transformation in itself is shocking enough. There is no need to further try and make the lead character undergo this rapid change because it takes away from the substance of the film and ultimately the rest of the film with it. The entire film rests on this one leading character and the director certainly displayed that challenge here, unfortunately it was not displayed in the way that it should have been.

I would not recommend this film especially if you read the book because it is filled with just to many contradictions throughout and faces its own themes in a overly simplistic way and method. The film fails miserably in trying to describe such a complex problem effectively and certainly doesn't give any answers in a precise or convincing manner. Sadly this film becomes a parody of itself.

Charly fmovies. Cliff Robertson acting job for playing Charly Gordon is amazing. It is a must see movie, just for that reason alone. The movie shows what it is like to live in the world of a mentally handicapped person. It shows how our society treats those people. It shows how Charly changes into a well, and very intelligent person. It also shows the friendship Charly has with the mouse. Who is the first to have the brain operation. Which is designed to improve the function of the brain. Also it shows the love Charly develops for this teacher Clair. However in the conclusion. The brain operation which made him a mentally well person, is a failure in the end. Sad ending of the movie. However the movie is considered a classic in my mind. Very well put together, and very well acted. I haven't read the book, this movie is based on.

I saw this movie at the drive-in when I was 12. I recall finding it to be a touching tragedy. I used to volunteer with "the special ed class", and found the students there to be gentle and grateful and affectionate, and could never understand how the other kids could make fun of them the way they did. But that only explains how and why this touched me personally, even at the age of 12.

Reviews some 30 years after this film was made are very critical, calling it 'schlock', and criticizing the simplification of a complex issue. However, over the last 30-40 years, society has become more enlightened about both mental retardation, but also about what science can and cannot do. It was easier to suspend belief and go with the concept.

At the time, this movie conveyed something new about how a mentally retarded person might view their situation....that alone made this film unique; lots of people never even considered the feelings of the mentally retarded, so this film surely opened some eyes.

And way ahead of it's time (I'm sure this was never considered in making the film), because it conveys the feelings and reactions of someone who is losing their intellectual capacity....such as those suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's. At that time, little thought was given by the average person about the feelings of either the mentally retarded, or people with Alzheimer's or dementia.

I'm sure the book was better than the movie; that almost always goes without saying. However, movies reach audiences that books sometimes don't, and this movie reached a new audience.

I'm afraid too many reviewers are unable to see an older movie and not hold it to the same standards, socially, scientifically and a cinematography standpoint. Cinema has evolved, as has society and science, and it's quite interesting to watch "Charly" with that in mind.

After having done The Days Of Wine And Roses On the small screen and seeing Jack Lemmon get the part for the big screen, Cliff Robertson pulled a Katharine Hepburn. Like Kate the great who bought the screen rights to The Philadelphia Story and dictated the making of it to MGM, Robertson did the same for Charly which he had done on the US Steel Hour almost a decade earlier on television. He did better than Lemmon who only was nominated for Best Actor for Days Of Wine And Roses.

Charly is the story of an amiable mildly retarded man who works and supports himself in a job at a bakery, but also has agreed to become an experimental subject to scientists, Claire Bloom, Leon Janney, and Lilia Skala. Janney has a theory in which he feels that the proper enzyme given and an operation and Robertson could start to function like a normal person.

The operation has some foreseen and unforeseen consequences. One of them is that Robertson is one fully functioning male, but still lacks a whole lot of social skills. He forms an attachment to Bloom which is something she saw coming, but not necessarily her.

More important he becomes far more aware of the world around him and how badly treated he was by a lot of people. One role I very much liked was that of his landlady Ruth White who was a woman with a big heart who does value Robertson as a person and gives him the respect any of us is due.

Still the film belongs to Cliff Robertson who won an Oscar for Best Actor in 1968. Robertson had some stiff competition that year, but probably was helped by the fact that three of his competitors were British, Alan Bates for The Fixer, Ron Moody for Oliver, and Peter O'Toole for The Lion In Winter who if memory serves was the betting favorite. The other nominee was Alan Arkin for The Heart Is The Lonely Hunter. How he manages to go from a mildly retarded man to a person of no mean erudition is a wonderful process unfolding on the screen. Personally I think it ought to be required viewing in every acting class on the globe, the subtleties are something to behold.

I don't claim to be any kind of scientific expert on this or any other scientific matter, but I would love to hear from those who know more as to whether the whole theory is feasible or not. In any event though Charly is a fine picture with both a message and a heart.