Charlie Gordon, a handicapped man that tried to change the world, I believe is a better story told from a book than seen as a movie. You could see Charlie's improvements in the progress reports while the movie had no way of showing them. All of the characters in the book seemed to be more complex while the movie kept the necessities. The book was able to show Charlie's emotional development while the movie had no ways of showing what was happening in his mind. In the book, Charlie could explain all of the flashbacks that happened. The movie skipped over these parts of the book. He was the main character of the movie but you could not hear his thoughts.
When reading the book, Flowers for Algernon, you become Charlie Gordon. You read his thoughts as if they are yours. You would feel his pain and his sorrow. You could see how Charlie grew. You noticed how Charlie's mental capabilities raced past his ability to handle them emotionally. You noticed how Charlie changed his thoughts on everyone he believed were his friends. He praised Alice as if she were the smartest teacher in the world.He would soon gain feelings for her, and you could not notice this struggle within while watching the movie. The book was more descriptive than the movie. Some people were completely taken out of the storyline in the movie. Fay and Rose at least had screen time, but they had nowhere near the impact they had in the book. After Charlie fled Chicago, he rented and apartment of his own. The Scene was replaced by Gordon sitting at a bar talking to Fay for one night. The flashbacks that Charlie kept having during the story weren't necessary enough for the movie. He never went to visit his father, and he never talked of having a sister. Charlie's mother didn't send the message that she had gone crazy for getting rid of him. I feel this ruined the closure needed in the story.
The movie wasn't able to show how Charlie was improving as well as the book did.
