Rating: 
Summary: JEEZ! Does ANYONE
Review: Out there know that "review" DOESN'T mean telling the whole story of the film, and ruining things for first-time viewers? Look it up in the dictionary. It means comment on the film, don't re-tell the whole story.This movie is a camp/suspense masterpiece with a tour-de-force performance by Davis. It was supposed to be over the top, and Aldrich succeeded gloriously. If you've never seen it, you should. But, remember, we're talking 1962 and deliberately campy. That's part of why it's so great. Don't watch it expecting Silence of the Lambs. And Anyone like the "half-baked" reviewer below who found it boring obviously doesn't understand filmmaking and/or acting. Stick to Pauly Shore movies, ace, OK?
Rating:
Summary: A Great Thriller, Bone Chilling.
Review: Sister, Sister, oh so fair. Why is there blood all over your hair. This film is awesome... a perfect thriller. A definate classic. This is the first film that I have seen with Bette Davis in it, and Joan Crawford. Both their performances in this film were awesome and Oscar worthy. I love psychological thrillers. If they made more movies like this, thrillers might get nominated once again. A Great Movie. A Must See. I Highly Highly Reccomend IT.
Rating:
Summary: classic
Review: I always enjoy this film,especially Bette Davis as Jane Hudson.I laugh at her shuffling around in her house shoes swilling gin.I love the scene when Jane takes Blanche her dinner tray in her room..blanche takes off the cover and theres a big rat laying neatly on a bed of sliced tomatoes!Meanwhile,Jane is cackling outside the bedroom door after the horrifying lunch entree is revealed!Bette and Joan are great in this movie,and an overlooked performance by Victor Buono.
Rating: 
Summary: Ewww, I think I wanna vomit!
Review: This movie might possibly be the worst ever film on the face of this world. I would advise everyone to save their money to buy something that you won't want to kill yourself over. Whatever Happened to Baby Jane is about to crazed sisters, one of whom is crippled, Blanch(Joan Crawford). Her sister Jane(Betty Davis) still thinks she is a beautiful child actor that wants all of the attention. When Jane's sister get all of the attention and trys to kill her you see she just gets more, and more crazy. As the movie progresses you get more, and more annoyed, one cannot even sleep during this movie just because of how irritated you get. Finally, at the end of the movie we find Jane and Blanch(near death now) on a beach. Jane wants some ice-cream so she gets it and leaves her sister to die starving and thirsty on the beach. Do yourself a favor, listen to me when i say this is the worst movie EVER!
Rating:
Summary: Oh, really? Did she LIKE it?
Review: 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane' is a movie whose name will forevermore conjure up images of Bette Davis in whiteface as the screeching, unhinged Jane, rats on silver trays, and Joan Crawford dying on a beach. However, if you can look past the campy stereotypes there's a beautifully-crafted thriller here, waiting to be enjoyed as one of the definitive films of 1960's Hollywood. Baby Jane Hudson (Bette Davis), a former child vaudevillian, is now charged with the care of her crippled movie-star sister Blanche (Joan Crawford). Having lost the use of her legs in an accident, Blanche stays mostly to her room, relying on Jane's guilt to take care of her. When Blanche decides to sell her house, Jane initiates a reign of terror over the infirm star, culminating in one of the most desolate and emotionally charged finales ever seen in pictures. It's impossible to look away from Davis as Jane. She's loud, over-the-top, unhinged, dangerous and luminous. As one reviewer charged, she is all cliche and mannerism, and there aren't enough sequences where Davis' considerable talent as an actress is allowed to give the character any real humanity. These scenes are present, however, when Jane is drunk at the piano, or right at the end of the movie when she's buying ice cream, and it's these scenes, played so beautifully by Davis, that stop the character of Jane from becoming yet another schlock-horror Titan and propel her into our memories as one of the greats. Joan Crawford, long considered to be the least-talented of these two actresses, turns the tables entirely in her role as the terrorised, hapless Blanche. She is winsome, emotional and most of all, she is real. Her magnificence as an Actress reveals itself in the personal exchanges with Blanche, their maid, and in those scenes where she is required to move out of her wheelchair - Crawford plays the part with empathy and pathos, and we find ourselves emotionally attached to Blanche for the entire picture. Victor Buono as Edwin Flagg, Baby Jane's musical arranger and special friend, also deserves a special mention - his performance is greasy, two-faced and cloying, and in absolute sympathy with the character he is portraying. Direction is excellent - Robert Aldrich has created a monster in Baby Jane, but, not content to let her carry the whole show, he gives us a genuinely creepy mansion for her to terrorise in, a house full of ambiguous shadows and beautifully lit and shot corners, staircases and window-lattices. He cleverly contrasts the pure Horror-Noir look of the Hudson interior with that of the plastic-fantastic suburban world of the neighbouring Mrs. Bates (Anna Lee) to great effect. Like the direction, the use of music and sound too goes a long way to furthering the sense of isolation and despair in the Hudson house. Blanche's buzzer and Jane's thumping, slouchy footsteps cut through mass silences and add to the tension. Jangly jazz music (the instrumental track from a song by Debbie Burton and Bette Davis, called 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane') in the sequence where Blanche is racing against time to get a note to her neighbours adds more again to the tension and isolation. Excellently preserved and transferred, 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' is a movie that no collection really should be without. It's a great example of how talent doesn;t fade with age, a truly chilling film, and above all else, highly entertaining. Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: joan shines!!!
Review: it seems every time i view this film, some hidden nuance in the demeanor of joan crawford's blanche reveals itself to me and convinces me that it is indeed miss crawford's performance which makes this film so memorable, apart from the sheer box office genius of pairing together two such high profile cinema legends under one roof. one of my two favorite moments (among many memorable ones) involves the scene where blanche enters jane's bedroom to suddenly discover, after searching jane's dresser, proof of jane's check forgery as well as a surreal glossy of the real 30s joan with the face all scratched out by a jealous jane. by the way, how fabulously surreal to encounter all the hidden references to joan's mgm heyday in this movie, especially the scene where joan watches herself on tv as 'sadie mckee.' however, the actual 'revelation' of subdued acting comes when blanche finds a box of chocolates in the same drawer and then proceeds to devour some of it with marvelously ravenous relish. it is one of the most fantastically well acted and realistic portrayals of utter physical hunger i have ever seen. the expressions on her face are pricelessly conveyed by the master of facial expressiveness. one almost feels compelled to applaud. this is just one of those moments in this movie when you realize joan's performance steals the show right from under bette's nose. the other tour de force scene comes when blanche later attempts ever so precariously to make her way downstairs to get to the phone by supporting herself on the stair rail, her hair all disheveled and her face portraying consummate anxiety and despair.
it appears that, while bette relies much too heavily on 'make-up and mannerisms' to do the acting for her, joan has only her very own beautifully expressive face to convey every subtle emotion in the book. that's the real difference in my opinion. bette used her ghoulish make-up as a 'prop' while joan literally had to 'act' out what was, in reality, a much more demanding role as blanche. there are also certain scenes where bette's timing seems to be oddly off for some inexplicable reason, as in the scenes where she's required to let out those hyena-like bursts of demented laughter. don't get me wrong, i do appreciate bette's jane on occasion but, as a whole, i enjoy it much more on a campy (i.e., overly mannered) level. i feel the way this movie has been perceived is all wrong. i'm inclined to believe that, while joan's blanche may indeed have been supposed to play a sort of 'straight man' to jane's outlandish antics in this film, joan manages, in fact, to turn the tables and make blanche the real 'acting' focus in this duo, rendering bette's jane a mere 'sideline of a freak show' at times. part of the blame for this unexpected turn of events, of course, is due to what must've been bette's overwhelmingly insecure desire to upstage, upstage, upstage!!! at all cost and make herself a much too obvious 'look at me' target throughout this film.
also, joan's wonderfully conveyed despair and horror in her swirling wheelchair after the infamous 'rat' had been served to her, brings to mind shades of a louise howell, a tragically mentally troubled crawford role from the 1947 noir classic 'possessed' which earned her a second oscar nomination.
at any rate, as in 'grand hotel,' where joan steals the show from garbo, so too in 'baby jane' she steals it from davis. i guess there is always a hidden and easily incurred danger in turning an 'overt' character like that of jane's into a one dimensional, cartoon-like 'monster' of camp, which is, sadly, all we get from bette. joan, however, knew better. she knew that it was blanche's role which actually offered the most 'acting' potential and she exploited it most effectively. in retrospect, it appears much too much has been made of bette's real chances to win the oscar for her turn as 'baby jane.' after repeated viewings, one realizes that bette's highly 'campy and shock value' portrayal deserved nothing more than a nomination, and that is perhaps being too generous, in all honesty. joan's subtle turn as blanche, on the other hand, would've been the perfectly nuanced role to celebrate with 'at least' a nomination. after all, it only seems fitting to have nominated both ladies if any was to be nominated at all. to have only nominated bette for her campy orgy of overacting as jane was in itself a horrendous affront to joan's real talent and career.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Have Clasic Thriller
Review: I bought this movie not knowing what to expect. I like Beette Davis and Joan Crawford both. I was always thinking that the roles would have been reversed in the sense that Joan was going to be the mean one and that Bette was going to be the inoccent one. Boy! was I blessedly wrong. Bette Davis is a true monster in this movie. you will love to hate her. And Joan Crawford you will feel nothing but desperate for her . But there is a twist that will shock you in the end. Its a must have.
Rating: 
Summary: Bette Davis and Joan Crawford.....
Review: The fact that these two women starred together in a film is enough reason to watch. These were two of the most celebrated and self career controlled actresses of the era. This movie is quite enthralling, and has a surprising twist at the end. It is worth the time to watch.
Rating:
Summary: A Scary Baby, Jane
Review: A captivating masterpiece of the Grand Guignol school, WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? is one of those rare horror movies that can be chilling, repulsive, and downright terrifying, and all this without the slightest soupçon of the improbable, the impossible, or the supernatural. It is a story of the rivalry between two spinster sisters who were both once show-business superstars--the egotistical and hedonistic Jane (Bette Davis), a onetime juvenile darling of the vaudeville stage but now a talentless has-been; and the gracious and congenial Blanche (Joan Crawford), formerly a popular and highly talented movie actress whose career was cut short by a crippling auto accident. Circumstances and kinship obligations have forced them to live together, their sole income the being the interest from Blanche's investments. But feeling trapped in a situation that has become intolerable and loathsome, Jane begins a slow spiral into madness and takes out her psychopathic aggressions on the invalid Blanche in increasingly twisted ways. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford were both facing waning careers when they were cast in this movie, but outstanding performances from both jump-started those careers and propelled the women back into the hearts of the public. Bette Davis is especially superb as the selfish and sadistic Jane, both compelling and believable in her portrayal of the onetime child star who has degenerated into a repulsive and vulgar reflection of her former self. Also notable is the appearance of actor Victor Buono, who here makes his film debut in the supporting role of a young, out-of-work pianist attempting to mooch a few dollars off of spinster Jane. Davis and Buono each received Oscar nominations for their performances. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? is sharp, compelling--and scary! The Warner DVD is short on extras, and the digital transfer could have used a little clean-up on the scratches and wear artifacts, but it is still well worth the reasonable price and will make a fine addition to the collection of any horror fan.
Rating:
Summary: Bette and Joan forever..
Review: Bette Davis and Joan Crawford - one reviewer summed it up when he said we will never see stars of their greatness again. Both reigned Hollywood during the era of glamour and melodrama. Crawford was the great beauty - ranked with Garbo and Dietrich as a supreme glamour symbol during the 1930s. As she matured, she became the great actress - and anyone who has seen Humoresque or Mildred Pierce must agree. She was, however, best as the suffering, glamorous heroine of wistful melodramas. Bette, on the other hand, was star at Warners and was less wistful and more practical than Joan - that's the best way I can describe the difference between Joan and Bette. Joan was the romantic dreamer, and Bette the practical realist. Naturally, both were very jealous of each other, their feud in Hollywood was legendary. Although very much alike, they had huge inner differences. Whatever Happened to Baby Jane was the very first movie I had seen with either actress. I saw it about seven years ago on AMC when I was 11. That would make the year about 1996. Anyway, 1996 was not a very glamorous or melodramatic year, and just the sight of Bette Davis caked in ghostly white Baby Jane makeup was enough to capture my imagination. Who was this tragic creature, I wondered. The story was just brilliant. I had never seen anything like it. Between the rats in the cellar, dramatic alcoholism, and the haunting appearance of Bette, I was in some kind of cinematic realm I had never entered before - and I loved it! So, naturally, I became a huge fan of Bette Davis - much to the confusion of everyone else my age. It is only as I look at the film now, that I realize Joan Crawford was just as much the equal of Bette, and possibly the better actress in general. That she was able to give such a sensitive and subtle performance at this stage in her life - alcoholism had taken a great toll - is proof that she really was a master. The character of Blanche was originally intended to be just as bizarre and crazy as Baby Jane. However, Joan insisted that her character be glamorous and appear somewhat human. This must have helped the film tremendously - because the humanity of Blanche allows us to feel sympathy for her character - without that sympathy her character wouldn't have been the "straight man" and the film, simply, wouldn't have worked! When you want to acknowledge who really saved Baby Jane - thank Joan Crawford, the real genius behind the project (she was, remember, the one who found the book in the first place and insisted that Robert Aldrich direct it, skyrocketing his career and Bette's!) What a shame that Joan didn't receive the Oscar, but how glad I am that she accepted for Anne Bancroft at the Oscars! Go Joan...the ultimate diva.
|
