Trying not to give many spoilers, I will say that I have a lot of mixed feelings about this movie. When I first watched it I thought of giving it a 3 out of 10 - maybe a 4 out of 10. However, when I actually think about it, this movie was pretty darn awful. The acting wasn't bad at all, in fact I found Cliff Robertson's performance to be quite good. Unfortunately, this did not make up for how terrible this movie was. I especially hated how there were these weird parts that would come out from no where. You can tell there were some deleted scenes and because of this, some parts had a very terrible and slightly confusing transition. Another problem I had with this movie was the perverted twist that it had. The story was not nearly this bad and did not have the same tone as the movie - which is great because the story is actually pretty good. The end of the story is a rather sad part, however I find that the movie has a terrible ending. The ending of the movie seems very rushed, and does not invoke any emotion whatsoever (in my opinion). For these reasons, I give this movie a 1 out of 10 and do not recommend this movie at all, for it is a waste of time.

Cheryl Gordon is a mentally handicapped man, played wonderfully by Cliff Robertson, who is tormented by society. The novella it is based on is a study in how the brain begins to change and his acuity with it. The language changes from stilted phrases to long, complex sentences. Here, things happens fast. Charly has brain surgery and begins to grow in intellect. It is a quantum leap in that he rises to high levels overnight. This is OK because we accept it in the movie, but his lack of experiences aren't really dealt with. Imagine a man not even knowing what the stock market is and then investing in it. He would still have to have the experience of some economic knowledge development. This is a story of great tragedy because the experiences of love and longing stay but he is left to his own designs.

You know, I still haven't quite made up my mind which character I thought Cliff Robertson played the worst - The mentally defective, Charly Gordon? - or - The brilliant genius, Charly Gordon? If I was actually forced to make a decision about either one of Robertson's truly unconvincing portrayals, I guess I would have to go with his impersonation of the mentally defective, Charly Gordon. I mean, Robertson was so "aw-shucks!" bad that it was downright laughable at times.And, with that in mind, I honestly cannot believe that Robertson actually won an Oscar for his performance, portraying the 2 Charly Gordons. And, besides that, at 45, I thought he was way too old for his character.This 1968 picture (no matter how well-meaning its story was meant to be) not only left me quite dissatisfied with its half-baked theories regarding mental retardation, but, below is a list of 3 of my major beefs against it.(1) I think this film deliberately exploited retardation simply for the sake of a really cornball romantic angle.(2) I thought that it was pretty damn-low that therapist, Alice Kinnian, actually had sex with her patient (Charly Gordon), regardless of his progressing intellectual level.(3) When Charly finally transformed into "Mr. Genius", his character was so unable to see beyond his own sneering cynicism towards his fellow man that it left him incapable of offering any sound solutions to many of man's social/global blunders.Anyway - In conclusion - This was one film that I was hoping would be more than just some entertainment "fluff". But, that's all that it was. 'Cause it was certainly a far cry from being a worthwhile exercise into intellectualism, as it might have been.

At the risk of revealing my approximate age, I will tell you that forty years ago I considered this movie to be excellent and was greatly impressed with the performances of Cliff Robertson and the beautiful Claire Bloom. Alas, time has gone by and after watching this movie again my opinion has changed. What I once considered to be a sensitive dramatization of the plight of the mentally challenged is today little more than typical simplistic Hollywood hokum. For this movie to be truly effective it has to has some connection to reality, and here the movie fails. This movie asks the audience to believe that a man, who according to the movie is a moron, is transformed into an idiot savant bordering on genius and then mysteriously regresses but while in the genius phase has a relationship with his psychologist who disregards every ethical and legal standard of her profession to act out her counter-transference fantasies. The question here is: who is more maladjusted? The hapless patient who is a victim of a weird experimental procedure, something that a Nazi scientist would have concocted and then goes awry, an experiment conducted apparently without the patient's informed consent, or his pathetic out-of-control psychologist who takes advantage of her patient for her own personal gratification? Also the performances themselves are unconvincing. Even in the "moron" phase Cliff Robertson does not seem mentally slow enough or disabled enough to warrant undergoing a radical experimental procedure and Claire Bloom's performance as the psychologist borders on the laughable. Her behavior is so erratic and irresponsible that I was waiting for the scene where someone calls the state licensing board to demand the revocation of her license. One of the lowest points of the movie is when Ms. Bloom's character asks, no begs, Charly to marry her after they find out that the operation has failed. It would have been better if Charly had said yes so that in the next scene the psychologist could be shown acting out her maternal fantasies with the now post-genius "moronic" Charly who is again babbling like a child but at least now has a surrogate mother to take care of him while they sleep in the same bed as husband and wife. Ugh!The purpose of a therapeutic relationship is to help the patient improve their functioning in society. The clinician is supposed to closely monitor the patient's progress toward achieving certain goals, utilizing the most effective and appropriate therapeutic techniques to achieve these goals - all for the benefit of the patient, not the therapist. However, in this movie the therapist's only goal is to have sex with the patient who has undergone a remarkable intellectual transformation but is still a patient. Ultimately the therapist's self-serving acting out hurts the confused and bewildered patient who is permitted, indeed encouraged to act out his sexual fantasies with his therapist. The movie provides a sensationalistic and completely unfair portrayal of mental health services.