A lightweight film, but engaging. I think that the actors did their jobs well, given the flimsiness of the script. I don't regret the time that I spent watching it.
It is, however, a knockoff - virtually a remake. I see that I'm far from the only one who recognized "Charly" / "Flowers for Algernon" in this. I wonder how they got away with it, presuming that it was presented as original work.
Those who complain about credibility ought to know that the original story by Daniel Keyes was presented and published as science fiction. And of course, in 1959, far less was known about the mentally challenged. The biggest credibility problem I had was the depiction of Venice with clean streets, nobody passed out on the sidewalk, and windows without bars. Then again, it's a MOVIE.
Either an editor or the script girl (excuse me, continuity director) was a little careless here and there, but to be more specific would make this a spoiler.
I found it amusing that the more sophisticated (and sexually aware) that Molly became, the more prominently her breasts were shown.
It is, however, a knockoff - virtually a remake. I see that I'm far from the only one who recognized "Charly" / "Flowers for Algernon" in this. I wonder how they got away with it, presuming that it was presented as original work.
Those who complain about credibility ought to know that the original story by Daniel Keyes was presented and published as science fiction. And of course, in 1959, far less was known about the mentally challenged. The biggest credibility problem I had was the depiction of Venice with clean streets, nobody passed out on the sidewalk, and windows without bars. Then again, it's a MOVIE.
Either an editor or the script girl (excuse me, continuity director) was a little careless here and there, but to be more specific would make this a spoiler.
I found it amusing that the more sophisticated (and sexually aware) that Molly became, the more prominently her breasts were shown.