Reviews & Ratings for
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 15:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

145 reviews in total

---

162 out of 218 people found the following review useful:
Disturbing, because it's real, 23 December 2003
Author: Robert Glass from Los Angeles

Interesting, to see comments dismissing WEHTBJ? as a "gay" film, or "cult" film, etc.

As a writer/producer who lived and worked in Hollywood for 30 years, I submit that those comments represent a "denial syndrome" of people who are ignorant of the facts of Hollywood.

What is so "horrifying" about WEHTBJ? is that the film is an utterly realistic psychodrama about two specific sisters of that era.

It's easy to say that Bette Davis' performance/makeup was "over the top," except that they weren't. In fact, I thought her look was taken from a sad "street person" in Hollywood who, in her seventies, walked up and down Hollywood Boulevard in a pink ball-gown and dead blonde wig and thick makeup, speaking into a transistor radio she held to her ear -- in the 60s, long before cell phones -- "talking" to the FBI about people chasing her.

Perhaps those who've spent their lives elsewhere, other than in Hollywood, feel that the characters in WEHTBJ? are "over the top." But they're not.

That's what makes them so heartbreaking. And the incredibly brave performances by Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Victor Bono and the rest -- not to mention the script and Robert Aldrich's direction -- make this simply the most definitive "Hollywood" psycho-thriller since "Sunset Boulevard."

There's "A Star Is Born," in any of its incarnations. Which is also "true" in its (their) way.

And there is "Sunset Boulevard" and "Baby Jane," which are even more true, and more brilliantly made.

These are not "horror films." They are riveting psychological studies, cast with astonishing actors, and magnificently directed and photographed.

They are the equivalent of Hitchcock's "Psycho," IMHO, which was preceeded by "Sunset Boulevard" and followed by "Baby Jane."

Each different, each brilliant, each marked by some of the most indelible performances ever captured on film.

It's typical of adolescents to make a "joke" about things that make them uncomfortable.

But when experience and age acquaint one with people like Baby Jane and Norma Desmond and, yes, Norman Bates, what's the point of joking?

These three films will tell those characters' stories forever, and better than 99% of films ever made.

That's why they're classics.

---

51 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
A compelling movie; Davis and Crawford tear each other apart, 21 June 2006

Author: LoneWolfAndCub from Australia

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? might seem dated, but it is still an extremely riveting watch. I literally could not look away, as soon as the movie started, I couldn't stop until it had finished. Not a lot of movies can do that to me. The acting is extremely good, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford are just so good as the main focus of the movie. The chilling score is suits the movie and the camera-work reminds me a lot of Hitchcock.

The story focuses on two sisters, Blanche Hudson (Joan Crawford) who was crippled in an accident awhile ago and "Baby" Jane Hudson (Bette Davis). Jane used to be a big child star, she even had a doll brand after her. Now, though, she is no longer recognised while her sister has recently become very famous. They live in an old mansion, with Blanche confined to her room upstairs while Jane gets madder and more cruel by the day.

Bette Davis gives the star performance here, some may call it over-acting but it is far from. She really makes Jane as mad, cruel and sad as possible. Joan Crawford is equally good in a very different role. She is much more timid then Jane and quite scared. The supporting cast are all good as well, especially Victor Buono as Victor Flagg, an odd pianist that befriends Jane. The black and white really are used to full effect, they make the mansion look extra creepy. Robert Aldrich's direction is fine.

To today's modern audience, this may seem boring as it does not have any action. Most of the movie is dialogue, but I do urge those who haven't seen it to do so, as it is a truly excellent movie.

A solid 5/5!

---

44 out of 50 people found the following review useful:
The Movie Was Excellent, 1 August 2006

Author: ijahra-1 from Trinidad and Tobago

The movie was suspenseful to the end and the musical score was awesome. I only disagreed with Henry Flagg's role, and he was such a wimp! It was great to see two '30- '50s Divas in one film, especially Joan Crawford's duplicitous role as a wronged sister. Bette Davis was truly deranged by the alcohol and the light switch personality changes was a joy to see. I especially loved the facial changes between the regression to the childlike Baby Jane and the hatred-driven character who was destined to take care of a sister more successful than her in adulthood. It may be a slow development of a story by today's standards, but the pace was good for me. I was intrigued to the end and suspected nothing like the final outcome.

---

41 out of 56 people found the following review useful:
Sibling Rivalry Between Hollywood's Leading Ladies -- At A Macabre Level., 4 August 2006

Author: youshotandywarhol from Oregon

"What Ever Happened To Baby Jane" is a tense horror film, yet it seems almost comical at the same time. The story is about Baby Jane Hudson, a former child Vaudeville star who has now grown older and been shyed away from the spotlight and attention that she so dearly loved. Baby Jane has a sister, Blanche, who is now crippled and restrained to a wheelchair. But before becoming immobile, Blanche was once a movie queen herself, and she incidentally pushed her sister out of the spotlight, which ignited extreme jealousy from Baby Jane.

Now, Baby Jane spends most of her time in a crumbling Hollywood mansion, taking care of her sister. She plays mean and dirty tricks on her, even going as far as to preparing Blanche a dead rat on her lunch platter and brutally beating her when she tries to phone for help, keeping Blanche contained within the walls of their home. Baby Jane lives in a world of false hope, thinking that she may be able to reprise her childhood career, putting on makeup and keeping her curly hair intact. But Baby Jane's continued jealousy burns on as Blanche's popular films are re-run on television, and her violent, twisted, and abusive side begins to come forth.

The entire film surrounds the two sisters as they fight back and forth, doing horrible things to each other. It's like a grown-up case of sibling rivalry between two of Hollywood's leading women, that turns out to be very well crafted and interesting to watch. Both Davis and Crawford, Hollywood legends, give top quality performances and bring depth and dimension to the characters of Baby Jane and Blanche. Granted, there is no shock value in this film anymore because it has become so dated, but it is still worth the while to watch because of how interesting it is to watch both actresses interact with one another. Davis plays the mad Jane with perfect mannerisms and eerie hysterical expressions as she torments her sister, costumed in ghostly white, caked makeup and golden curls in her hair.

It is kind of ironic because it has been speculated that Davis and Crawford really despised each other behind camera, they were both major award winners with legendary status in cinema, practically rivals themselves, which could have played into the way they treated each other in the film... or maybe not? I'd say it was very likely though. To sum it up this review, "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane" is a dated but exceptionally-crafted thriller. Modern day audiences will not be frightened, but the film itself was very, very well done. 9/10.

---

21 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
You didn't eat your dindin, Blanche, 17 October 2003
Author: Donald Casey from Saint John, New Brunswick

I have seen this movie at least two dozen times, and I will see it at least that many times again. It's such a Bette Davis feast. Of course, she was nominated for an Oscar. And she should have won it! There was a lot of 'history' between Miss Davis and Miss Crawford going way back to the 1940s, when Crawford was let go from M-G-M and went to work at WB where Bette Davis was Queen of the lot. The stories behind the making of the film are as interesting as the movie, with Miss Crawford demanding the set be kept at a breezy 55 (but preservative) degrees causing all kinds of problems with Miss Davis's bronchitis. One only wonders how much 'acting' was involved as Miss Davis tortures Miss Crawford emotionally and, later, physically. Miss Crawford suffers grandly and has her mandatory telephone scene, big eyes tremulous with fear. She is great, but it is a Bette Davis tour-de-force and she wipes every other actor off the screen. Full 10 of 10 for this one, and recommended to everyone who wants to see what the great actresses of the 1930s and 1940s could and would still do, albeit in minor-A productions, as the requests for their services dwindled, but wanted to keep on working.

---

52 out of 86 people found the following review useful:
But ya are Blanche!, 23 October 1999
Author: MickeyTo from Toronto, Canada

I recently viewed this film with a friend who had never seen it before. Much to my surprise, we had to turn it off early because this friend actually found Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? boring.

I'll admit that Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? is a dated piece of work. By today's standards, there is no shock value. The actresses are not well known by the younger crowds out there. There is a lot of dialogue and very little action. It simply doesn't fit in with today's expectations of horror and suspense. So why does it hold up as a great film, at least by my standards and by the standards of so many others?

To truly appreciate this film, it would be necessary to understand the background. What actually contributed to the making of this film is what I find truly fascinating.

The story itself is about two elderly sisters. One, Baby Jane, (played by Bette Davis) was a child star in the early part of the century. She was hugely popular on the vaudeville circuit. Backstage she was a spoiled brat. Later on in life the other sister, Blanche (played by Joan Crawford) became a popular Hollywood movie star, overshadowing her now 'has-been' sister. A supposed car accident leaves Blanche crippled during the height of her popularity and a crazed Jane is left to care for her.

In their later life Blanche is confined to her bedroom and Jane, still donning the make up and curls from her childhood runs the house. Jane still believes she can resurect her career, but is tormented by her sisters continued popularity as her films are rerun on television.

There are some fabulous lines throughout the movie that have become legendary. Blanche says, "You couldn't do this to me if I wasn't in this wheel chair.' Jane quips "But ya are Blanche, but ya are."

Davis plays Jane to the hilt, looking hysterically eerie as she tortures Crawford's stoic Blanche. My kid sister saw this film after seeing Mommie Dearest and aptly stated that this was just dessert for a woman who beat her children so badly. I think my sister was most impressed when Davis kicks Joan in the stomach. "Take that Mommie Dearest!"

Back to my original point, I believe that in order to truly appreciate this story, one must appreciate the behind-the-scenes legend that truly is the essence of this film. Davis and Crawford were, and are, two of the most formidable actresses in Hollywood. Between them there are hundreds of films, three Oscars, and countless tidbits of gossip. Both had to claw and chew their way to the top, and had to fight harder to stay there. They both had stormy relationships, and bitter feuds with studio bosses and directors. And both have a legion of fans that have survived long after they did. And of course, lets not forget the fact that they may have despised each other.

There is a fantastic book called Bette and Joan (I can't recall the author's name) that I recommend any novice viewer read prior to viewing this film. In it, the lives of these two remarkable women are described in gossipy detail. A lot of time is spent detailing the making of this film. At the time Joan was pushing her husbands company, Pepsi. It was rumored, perhaps by Bette that her Pepsi bottles were half filled with vodka. Bette also complains vehemently about the size of Joan's fake cleavage, and how they got in the way of some of those scenes. It's even suggested that some of those beatings that Joan took from Bette were real.

With all of this background, one might soon appreciate, as I did, the importance of this film in documenting the lives of these two prominent women. I don't think we'll ever come so close to true Hollywood Babylon as we will with this brilliant work.

---

20 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Impressive Thriller, 10 October 2006

Author: ragosaal from Argentina

"What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" is a most unusual and impressive thriller. Director Robert Aldrich achieves a fantastic sordid and dark atmosphere at the Huadson sisters mansion -where most of the action takes place- with an unusual black and white shooting for the early 60's. An interesting story, a well delivered screenplay and an accurate musical score also rise the film high.

But the main credit of the picture is casting together to real big names in Hollywood's history, not at their peak then but always reliable and attractive to see. Bette Davis (Jane) takes the most interesting character as the former child star that couldn't make it as an adult in show business so she has gone insane and keeps behaving as the spoiled child he was. She looks grotesque and ridiculous in her child outfits, hairdo and heavy make up. Davis is outstanding in her role and looks really mean when she tortures both mentally and physically her sister Blanche, delicate and reasonable. Joan Crawford plays Blanche and very well too, a former big star whose career ended after a strange car accident that put her on a wheel chair for life.

In the end things are not completely as they seem but the final twist is not what makes this film an extremely good one; it's the strange relationship between the sisters, that requires of that final twist to understand Blanche's tolerant conduct towards her sister.

The movie is perhaps a little too long and it would probably have been even better with a 10 minutes cut. But no doubt this is a top product in its genre and a great movie indeed.

---

17 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
One of the great movies about the movies, 3 July 2006

Author: Martin Bradley (MOscarbradley@aol.com) from Derry, Ireland

One of the great movies about the movies, (and great movies about the movies aren't reverential, they bite the hand that feeds them), and the best of Aldrich's 'women's pictures'. Detractors see it as a misogynist load of horse manure about a couple of self-loathing sisters hauled up together in a decaying Hollywood mansion, a too-close-to-home study of the real life rivalry between stars Bette Davis and Joan Crawford or even as a veiled study of homosexual self-depreciation with the sisters as ageing drag queens. But these are the very things that make the picture great. It is precisely because it can be read in this way that makes it such a perversely enjoyable, subversive piece of work.

As the sisters, Davis and Crawford pull all the stops out and then some. What makes Crawford's performance great is that she is never sympathetic even when Davis is feeding her dead rat or quite literally kicking her when she's down, while Davis is simply astonishing. With her face painted like a hideous Kabuki mask and dressed up like a doll that's filled with maggots it's an unashamedly naked piece of acting, as revealing as her work in "All About Eve" and almost as good. Unfortunately the film's commercial success lead both actresses into a downward spiral of not dissimilar but considerably lack-lustre material. But this bitch-fest is the real McCoy.

---

11 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Somehow, this is indeed compelling., 29 March 2008

Author: Lawrence Griffin from United States

I don't think I walked into this one with the right set of expectations. I expected a low-fi, creepy bit of occult-tinted fun from an age before horror films were bloated, over-done sacks of crap, and what I got was much different. I wouldn't really say this is a straight horror movie like Psycho or The Birds, as it unfolds itself like a riveting drama of two sisters instead. The acting is phenomenal, though, at least from our two lead characters, and the way they play off each other is just fantastic. This one takes a while to get going, but once it does, you are in for a high-octane, creepy thrill ride. Recommended to fans of older horror/suspense type movies.

---

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Mildred and Mildred, For One and Only Time, 7 June 2006

Author: nycritic

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

By 1962, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford had been all but relics from Old Hollywood. Even then, they were faint memories of a time gone by. No one young and alive at that time knew who they were nor did they have an interest in their all but dead careers. New stars were on the rise, sensibilities were changing, movies were starting to rely less on star power and taking risks with lesser known actors who did not convey the typical Hollywood image. New directors were also the hot ticket, and had little time or patience to deal with the vitriolic antics of temperamental females who threw their ego around like they would do with a small object in the heat of an argument. It was the start of the end of the American innocence.

And innocence lost is what seems to be the central theme of Robert Aldrich's Gothic horror movie WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? The story of two sisters living in complete isolation from the rest of the world, hating each other every from dusk 'til dawn, and harboring a deadly secret that could kill them is not the kind of material anyone would associate the two lead actresses with, but by then, their choices in scripts were precious few, both had begun to take baby steps in television -- considered by many actors to be a step down in their careers -- and both needed the work to pay the bills. When Crawford got her hands on the book, she decided to turn it into a movie because it would give her a chance to work with the actress she admired the most, even when such admiration was rebuffed with brutal aggression and had turned into hatred.

Enlisting Robert Aldrich, who had directed her in AUTUMN LEAVES (and with whom Crawford had had an affair with), and securing Davis in the role of the more dominant sister, cinema history was made when for the first time audiences got to see both actresses essay not only their character counterparts, but relive their extreme, morbid antipathy against each other. Reports of tension on the set flew like wildfire: for the first time since Miriam Hopkins, Bette Davis was up against the only other female whom she did not particularly like. Crawford knew she would have to compete in many other ways -- salary and dressing room included -- to make her experience with the stronger-willed Davis bearable. But... Crawford must have known what she was getting into: when you express such admiration for someone who does not respond back, and force yourself into a project with that person, anything can happen.

Despite the belief of a feud, both actresses expressed getting along quite well together. Of course, Davis added that had they worked for three months instead of three weeks, the result would have been much different. It is interesting, however, to see how they play against each other scene by scene: Davis overacts to almost impossible degrees and without knowing makes Crawford come off better. It was like seeing Mildred Rogers meeting Mildred Pierce for a perverse face-off: and it is also interesting to see that the wig Davis wears bears a resemblance to the way she wore her hair in OF HUMAN BONDAGE to some degree, the same way the resemblance to Crawford as Blanche to her anterior character is striking.

As a movie, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? is a lesser sister film to SUNSET BLVD., but also a precursor to Rob Reiner's adaptation of Stephen King's MISERY with the genders reversed. It did pave the way for a sub-genre within the horror genre featuring older women in exaggerated Gothic stories of murder and mayhem, and on that alone it does deserve that accolade. It also became something of a distant relation to the works of David Lynch in its willingness to depict an inherent weirdness within the sadomasochistic, co-dependent relationship between the sisters.

At times a little exploitative, at times gripping, and at times flat out funny, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? was yet another triumph in both Crawford's and Davis' careers with an Oscar nomination for Davis, an Oscar snub for Crawford, and increased tension between the two women. Both were slated to appear in a follow-up movie that became HUSH, HUSH... SWEET CHARLOTTE in 1964, but because of "medical reasons" Crawford had to bow out, leaving Davis' old friend Olivia deHaviland to step in. Neither actress would ever work together again. Crawford's career would come to an end not 8 years later in 1970 following a string of grade F horror movies (a shortened version of what has become Karen Black's career), whereas Davis would successfully alternate the remainder of the Sixties and all throughout the Seventies and Eighties between OK horror movies, TV dramas (where she would get Emmy nominations), and even a pilot for a series co-starring friend Anne Baxter. As it is, this remains a blueprint for actors who have been known to despise each other, working together, and making their mutual animosity the stuff of high camp and egotistical overacting.

---

---

Page 1 of 15:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history