Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
"What do you see in th[e] world?... [Asked to describe the things in the world as he sees them, as asked since his intelligence is new to the world.] Modern Science? C: Rampant technology, conscience by computer. Modern art? C: Dispassionate draftsmen. Foreign policy? C: Brave new weapons. Today's youth? C: Joyless, guide-less. Today's religion? C: Preachment by popularity poll. Standard of living? C: A TV in every room. Education? C: A TV in every room. The world's future Mr. Gordon? C: Brave new hates, brave new bombs, brave new wars. The coming generation? C: Test tube conception, laboratory birth, TV education, brave new dreams, brave new hates, brave new wars, a beautifully purposeless process of society suicide." Prophetic or what? The best visual scene, Charly's adolescence, follows the worst scene where Charly tries to force his teacher sexually. I think people particularly are wanting to hate on the fact that she likes him after his adolescence even though he attempted to sexually assault her, but I think the film was trying to say that she already was conflicted about her feelings for him up to that point already, he was not yet socially mature enough to understand the ramifications of his actions, and once he was back and emotionally matured she could accept him. Don't know if that is especially healthy, but it fits the narrative to make it at least plausible. The film has a number of cheesy moments and is a bit too forgiving of bad behavior and treatment of others, but it's philosophical questions are amazing. Would it be right to give genius intellect to someone just so they can have it stripped away a year later? Are minors responsible for their actions even though they are only responding to hormones through a lack of experience? What if you could see the world outside of your own biases to see things as they really are? Is the way that we treat those that are disabled appropriate and courteous? These are all well addressed by the film, and the character of Charly is very intriguing, despite the less than interesting side characters of the film. Even the correlations to Charly being a lab's guinea pig are handled pretty well. His fear at the end of losing his intelligence was perfectly addressed and terrifying, and the score was great. Saw this first in pieces throughout the years, and I'm glad I finally got to see it all the way through.
Not as impactful as it intends, but it has its few moments.
Works fine enough and Robertson is good. Doesn't come close to capturing the novel, though.
Charly (1968) C-103m. ??? 1/2 D: Ralph Nelson. Cliff Robertson, Claire Bloom, Lilia Skala, Ruth White, Dick Van Patten. Beautiful performance by Robertson as retarded man becoming genius after scientific experiment; he learns about romance and falls for his teacher Bloom. Based on the famous short story Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes. I prefer the original story ending but otherwise terrific film. Robertson won Oscar.
To this day, Cliff Robertson gave hands down the most heartwarming and relatable performance than any other actor would from the 1900s.
Cliff Robertson deserved two not one Oscar for his incredible portrayal of a mentally disabled man who becomes a genius then regresses.
this score is terrible. This screenplay is terrible. This movie is terrible.
I loved the book. This movie has filler scenes littered throughout.
Wow. They took the fantastic story of "Flowers for Algernon", and they ruined it.
Let's ignore all the pointless changes. Let's ignore all the trippy and disturbing scenes. Let's ignore the fact that we don't see these characters progress (or regress) at all. Let's ignore the completely abrupt and half assed ending. What kills the film for me is that it's a love story, not a story about a man wanting more from his life.
Interesting film, almost Science Fiction for pete's sake, about a mentally retarded man getting an operation, then becoming almost the smartest man alive. This film is definitely interesting as I didn't know where the hell it was going to go. Part comedy, part drama, part psychedelic mess, this one was wild. You need a bit of patience for the very slow first half though. Not too sure if Cliff Robertson deserved an Oscar for this...
It can be quite corny at times, but it's a sweet story. However, I guess I prefer it following closer to the book, Flowers for Algernon, than changing it up like it did here.