Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

bkoganbing 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.

donnyrussell 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.

citybuilder9 Let me just start off by saying that I absolutely loved the book "Flowers for Algernon", which we read in my lit class at school. It was probably the best book I've ever been forced to read. Also at our school, they made us watch this movie after finishing it. I found this film at best a poor adaption of a great novel and at worst, a disastrous attempt at surrealist film-making.First, the positives: The actors, especially male and female leads are excellent and have a definite chemistry together on screen, however they seem a bit confined by the material they are given to perform.Now, the far more lengthly section of my review: the negatives. 1. Cinematography. The whole movie seems to have been shot in a style to suggest being on a bad acid-trip (not that I would know the feeling.). Many scenes are an endless, ridiculously over metaphorical montage where it would have been much simpler and more effective to use a more straight forward approach. For some odd reason, the director also decided to use a split screen effect at certain arbitrary points in the film for no apparent reason other than possibly the notion that it looked cool.2. Writing. This is probably my biggest problem with the film. The writing in the movie is simply incredulous, seeing as it not only departs from the book in unnecessary ways, which I will detail later, but it also changes the plot in ways that make no logical sense, such as changing it so that the doctors don't tell Charlie that the effects of the operation may not be permanent, not something a 20th century medical professional is likely to do given that a patient must give informed consent before undergoing an operation. The beginning portion drags on, filled with scenes of Charlie doing childish activities such as playing on a slide or driving bumper cars to the point where one feels like jumping up on one's chair and screaming "We get it! He's retarded!". The most nonsensical plot twist is the series of scenes in which Charlie, not being emotionally developed, tries to force himself on Ms. Kinnian and is, as a result, slapped and called "A stupid moron", then departs on a motorcycle trip for no readily apparent reason and comes back and is suddenly sleeping with Ms. Kinnian, whose fiancée just magically disappears, which leaves the audience scratching its head and saying "Didn't she just slap and insult him two scenes ago? I wish my life worked like that."3. The Ending. I have given this it's own section because I feel it deserves special attention. At the end of the novel, the reader basically has two ways of interpreting it: Relocation or Suicide (the latter being my preferred interpretation). However, this version removes all of the guesswork by simply giving you no clues as to what happens after he regresses back to his former state. Instead, you get a long, stretched out scene in which he is chased by his former self through long, white hallways for about five minutes, and one is left with a similar reaction I mentioned having during the beginning portion. This is one of the few movies in which I have been shocked to see the end credits, as it just ends with a freeze-frame of Charlie on the teeter-totter and leaves the story completely unresolved.I'm sorry if the above review seems a bit rantish, however these are simply my criticisms of the film. If you enjoyed it, then that's all well and good. To each his own.

Yankeefan1313 This is the wost movie I have ever seen. This Movie is based on the book "Flowers for Algernon", but is missing almost everything that made the book good. In the movie there were no flashbacks, he never caught Gimpy stealing from Mr. Donner, he did not get his job back at the bakery at the end of the movie like he did in the book, no progress reports were written, his parents and sister were not even mentioned, Fay was not in the movie, the title of the movie has no meaning because he did not put Flowers on Algernon's grave, Charly and Alice moved to far to fast with there relationship when in the story Charly kept getting sick when he and Alice were getting intimate, and in the movie Charly seemed to get smart too fast which took away from the suspense of the movie. I was much happier with the book, the movie has too many holes in the story.