What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) User Reviews (304)

Those Hudson Sisters

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 30 April 2010]

Not that this film isn't good, it's very good in a ghoulish sort of way. But the miracle is that it got made at all. Was director Robert Aldrich really a director here or more of a referee.

In any event Aldrich in directing Whatever Happened To Baby Jane took a pair of screen legends whose well known and public loathing for each other and managed without being killed to fashion a film about a pair of has been performers who live in the same house with their memories, their problems and mutual hatreds.

Bette Davis as Baby Jane Hudson was a child vaudeville performer who like so many child stars was a has been when she became a teen. Not to worry about income because when she became a teen, her younger sister Blanche played by Joan Crawford then became the family breadwinner. But that came to an end when she was crippled in a car crash and it was widely believed that her sister had deliberately used the car as a weapon of jealousy.

So these two with everything and yet nothing in common are bound to the family house and each other. Crawford a prisoner in her wheelchair and Davis a prisoner of her own fantasies as she retreats gradually into her childhood and glory days.

Crawford is seeing how Davis is becoming more and more unhinged and decides to sell the family estate and get Davis into the 1962 equivalent of Happydale. But Davis gets wind of the plan and she makes Crawford a prisoner in her own home and eventually Davis just loses it totally.

The wrap up of shooting must have been a day celebrated by Robert Aldrich on each anniversary the rest of his life. But he got himself a film that's as fascinating as a bloody 20 car pile up on the Interstate. Whatever Happened To Baby Jane got an Oscar for costume design for a black and white film and four other nominations.

One of those nominations was for Best Actress, a then record 10 of them for Bette Davis in the title role. Bette Davis was an actress who could make some mediocre films entertaining when she took the brakes off. Here the role called for the most outrageous kind of overacting and Bette made the most of it. Joan's more subdued role of the victim in this film, good as she was didn't have a chance next to Bette's for recognition. Of course Crawford legendarily took a perverse pleasure in being the honorary acceptor for Anne Bancroft when she won the Oscar for Best Actress for The Miracle Worker in 1962. Truth be told Anne was the Best Actress that year.

Whatever Happened To Baby Jane is such a two woman film that the rest of the cast is just left in the dust. Another miracle occurred when Victor Buono received some recognition with a nomination for Best Supporting Actor as the mother fixated pianist who plays along with Bette Davis when she decides to revive her career. Of course the strange noises and doings in that house eventually creep him out. Buono's scenes are all with Davis and with the scene stealing Marjorie Bennett who's kind of a mirror image of Baby Jane Hudson as Buono's inebriated mother. Just holding his own with these two I'm figuring the Academy figured Buono deserved some recognition.

Bette and Joan, both were destined to be trapped in mediocrity for the most part in roles well beneath their talents. Bette to her credit did escape with such things as an Agatha Christie mystery occasionally and The Whales Of August. But mostly she and Joan did horror flicks because of the impression that Whatever Happened To Baby Jane left on the minds of the movie-going public. Both also got unceremoniously dissed by their daughters in memoirs, Bette not having the decency to die before B.D. Hyman's book came out.

Whatever Happened To Baby Jane as repulsively fascinating as it is is a testament to two screen legends and the stamina of director Robert Aldrich who got them to share the screen.

One of the Best Movies of the 1960's

[Sober-Friend · 9/10 · 17 April 2017]

In 1917 "Baby Jane" Hudson is an adored vaudevillian child star, while her sister Blanche Hudson lives in Jane's shadow. By 1935, both sisters are movie actors, but their fortunes have reversed: Blanche is a successful film actress, while Jane is forgotten and languishes in little-seen B-movies. One night, an inebriated Jane mocks Blanche at a party, provoking Blanche into running away in tears. That night, Blanche is paralyzed from the waist down in a mysterious car accident that is unofficially blamed on Jane, who is found three days later in a drunken stupor.

In 1962 Jane has descended into alcoholism and mental illness, and treats Blanche with cruelty.

What happens is a waking nightmare but the ending is more shocking than Bette Davis appearance.

Now this film is fun to watch. You need to see this. This was an instant classic upon its release. In 2017 the film returned to public conscienceless because of the Ryan Murphy Mini Series "Feud". That mini series is all about "Betty & Joan". It details the making of this film and all the events that surrounded it.

Excellent Comeback for Both Stars!

[bsmith5552 · 9/10 · 11 April 2017]

It is well documented the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, to put it mildly, didn't like each other very much. But to their credit, they saw the advantage of teaming up in a bizarre horror film that would revive their ebbing careers. That film was "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"

In 1917 Baby Jane Hudson is a big star in vaudeville with her father. Her sister Blanche is envious of her success and vows to be more famous some day. Fast forward to 1935 and Blanche has turned into Joan Crawford and Baby Jane, Bette Davis. Blanche has become a successful movie star while Jane's career has floundered.

A tragic accident causes Blanche to become paralyzed and Jane to become her full time caregiver. The rivalry between the two carries on. Both are immersed in their past successes however, Jane has begun to lose it. She continually harasses Blanche to the point of serving up bizarre meals to force Blanche to stop eating. Blanche is prevented in calling for help by the ever increasingly paranoid Jane. Housemaid Elvira Stitt (Maidie Norman), sympathetic to Blanche becomes suspicious of Jane's actions.

Jane meanwhile is dreaming of a comeback and hires Victor Flagg (Victor Buono) to accompany her and help manage her career. Blanche in the meantime has made it to the phone and calls for help but Jane walks in and catches her. Jane then ties Blanche up and imprisons her in her room. Elvira, sensing trouble forces Jane to open the door to reveal the pathetic Blanche bound up to her bed. This forces Jane to take action and.........................................

Davis and Crawford had been rivals since their salad days in the 1930s, when both were major stars. Both were immensely talented but just couldn't get along. Now as both were well into their 50s, they were smart enough to see the value of teaming up for the first time in their long careers. Unfortunately this was the one and only time they did so. Plans to re-team them for "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte) (1964) fell through. Both finished their careers in TV and in "crazy old broad" type pictures. Davis' "The Whales of August" (1987) was an exception.

Also in the rather large cast were Marjorie Bennett excellent as Buono's mother Dehlia, John Ford favorite Anna Lee as the next door neighbor Mrs. Bates and Davis' daughter B.D. Merrill as Liza Bates. Too bad she didn't inherit her mother's considerable talent.

By God they still had it. Too bad that this was their only collaboration.

The Resurrection Of The Hudson Sisters

[terencebells · 10/10 · 21 April 2017]

Ryan Murphy's series "Feud" in which Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon play Joan Crawford and Bette Davis at the time of Baby Jane and beyond. I got so engrossed the series that I had to see What Ever Happened To Baby Jane again. Wow! Now, it all feels slightly different, less campy more poignant. Joan Crawford as played by Jessica Lange - the best performance by an actress in many, many years - is a totally recognizable person, crazy or not. When George Cukor tries to convince Joan not to be so vindictive "you're better than this Joan" to what Crawford/Lange replies: "No George, I'm not" Fantastic! Like another user already mention, I agree What Ever Happened To Baby Jane and Feud will be feeding each other keeping each other alive for generations to come.

A compelling movie; Davis and Crawford tear each other apart

[LoneWolfAndCub · 10/10 · 21 June 2006]

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!

Baby Jane 2017 a whole other story

[janiceferrero · 10/10 · 23 July 2017]

I've always being a fan of What Ever Happened To Baby Jane. I saw it for the first time as a teenager and Bette and Joan became my obsession. I tried to see everything they had done and did I? All About Eve, The Little Foxes, Now Voyager as well as Mildred Pierce, Humoresque. I warmed up quicker to Bette. Her horrible women were priceless and she was fearless. Joan Crawford kept me at a distance, I think the cosmetics got in the way. But now, watching Baby Jane in 2017 - thanks to the amazing Ryan Murphy series "Feud" - I saw a very different Crawford and her performance has grown in scope and depth. I know I shall see this film again. Fascinating to realize there is still so much to discover.

You didn't eat your dindin, Blanche

[tuptuptippytoes · 17 October 2003]

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.

Sibling Jealousy, Rivalry, Malevolence and Insanity

[claudio_carvalho · 10/10 · 2 July 2013]

In 1917, Baby Jane is a famous, but spoiled child star that performs a show with her father under the jealous look of her sister Blanche. In 1935, Blanche Hudson (Joan Crawford) becomes a famous and glamorous actress in Hollywood and the untalented Baby Jane Hudson (Bette Davis) only acts because Blanche forces the producers to give parts to her. One night, they go to a party and there is a car accident.

In 1962, Blanche is a crippled woman that has been left wheelchair-bound after the accident that lives with her alcoholic sister Baby Jane in a decaying Hollywood mansion. Baby Jane does not recall the accident since she was drunk and is in absolute control over Blanche that is completely isolated without any contact with the outside world and dumping her correspondence in the trash. As Baby Jane becomes more insane, she decides to return to the stage and hires the idle Edwin Flagg (Victor Buono) to play piano. Meanwhile she continues to torment Blanche and her cruelty increases.

"What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" is one of the greatest American movies ever, with top-notch performances of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. The disturbing story of sibling jealousy, rivalry, malevolence and insanity has a surprising plot point in the end that really surprises. I believe the three lead characters – Baby Jane, Blanche and Edwin Flagg – are a field day for psychologists. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "O Que Terá Acontecido com Baby Jane?" ("What Might Have Happened to Baby Jane?")

Astounding movie with two riveting actresses : Davis and Crawford

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 5 March 2005]

The movie deals with two old retired actresses : Bette Davis and Joan Crawford , Davis is a nut-head and Joan Crawford is a cripple woman . A terrible secret originates taking on each other . The confrontation will be creepy and scary .

From the beginning to the end the suspense and tension are continuous . The script of the film is very warped and the final has an extraordinary surprise . In the movie there is intrigue , mystery , violence , taut , terror and though being mostly developed on interior stages is neither tiring , nor dreary , but entertaining . The runtime is longtime , two hours and some approx. but it happens a lot of events and that's why isn't boring . Interpretation of the main actresses is first range , as Bette Davis specially , she with his make-up and hysterical acting is the real madness . Both actress will continue playing similar roles as ¨The anniversary¨ and ¨The nanny¨. Bette Davis was nominated for the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance in this movie . Had Davis won, it would have set a record number of wins for one actress . Davis and Joan Crawford had a lifelong mutual hatred, and a jealous Crawford actively campaigned against Davis winning Best Actress . The support cast with Victor Buono is outstanding . Robert Aldrich's direction is excellent , even the same realized a sequel : ¨ Hush,Hush sweet Charlotte ¨ ( with Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland and Victor Buono) . Black and White cinematography by Ernest Haller is rightly made and Frank DeVol music (Robert Aldrich's habitual musician) is stimulating .

Rating : Above average . This is a definitely movie worth seeing.

A great come back for these two

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 8 August 2021]

Two grand actresses, Bette and Joan, have their final screen showdown as--what else--retired show biz siblings. Bette's character achieves success early in vaudeville as Baby Jane Hudson, a child actress with a tendency for temper tantrums. As an adult Joan achieves tremendous success as film actress Blanche Hudson. Jane, however, is a horrendous actress, though Blanche makes sure that for every N pictures she makes, that Jane is featured in a film. If you look hard, you'll recognize the scenes from "Parachute Jumper" that the 30s studio execs are roasting in regards to Jane's performance.

A touch of Norma Desmond/Sunset Boulevard here--Bette as a delusional has-been who actually believes her career can be resurrected. Joan as the sister confined to a wheelchair as a result of a horrific car accident. In the drive-way. Supposedly run over by Baby Jane in the 1930s but never proven or prosecuted.

Fast forward to the 1960s, and Baby Jane takes it hard upon learning Blanche plans to sell their old stately mansion. She begins a systematic torture of Blanche that amounts to elder abuse in today's terms. Viewers who saw this film 60 years ago were frightened by the hair-raising dinner entrees given to Blanche: Her dead pet bird served up on a tray of tomatoes and the rat well-done. What doesn't hold up is Blanche's inability to bring attention to her imprisonment. For instance, her neighbor is outside below her window cutting flowers. Instead of screaming like a maniac for help, she writes a complicated note on a typewriter, balls it up, and throws it out the window. Of course, Baby Jane finds it. Duh. When the affected Victor Buono visits the house as a loony piano accompanist for Blanche, she could have screamed and yelled for help. She doesn't.

For all their competition, both Bette and Joan are good here and the ending is extremely ironic. Davis always claimed that Joan campaigned against her at Oscar time and that is why she didn't win. Davis certainly hadn't lost her willingness to look as unattractive as she needed to be in order to play the part. Overweight, dressed up like she is 10 not 55 with her hair in blonde curls and grotesque pancake makeup on, she is the ideal aged homicidal maniac of a Baby Jane doll. Joan's part requires much more subtlety to the point of not doing what she must to save herself. These two definitely make it a worthwhile watch.

"I've Written A Letter To Daddy!" (Movie quote)

[strong-122-478885 · 6/10 · 8 July 2015]

(Fave "Baby Jane" quote) - "You mean all this time we could've been friends!??"

To be honest, I was all set to despise this "Comedy-of-Horrors", venomously, the very minute I sat down to watch it. But, that all changed within the first 15 minutes as I quickly became quite engrossed in the contrasting character portrayals given by its 2 lead, veteran actresses, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford (both in their mid-50s at the time).

I know that a lot of people rave approvingly about Davis's grotesque make-up and all of her "scenery-chewing" antics as being the highlight of this picture - But, personally, my vote for most outstanding performance goes to Crawford as Blanche Hudson, a prisoner trapped in her own tailor-made hell.

I'd say that Crawford's riveting "Please.... Help me!" scene clearly put all of Davis's over-the-top shenanigans to absolute shame.

Yes. This tragic tale about madness, pent-up resentment and living a life of long-faded dreams definitely has its fair share of glaring flaws - But, all the same, it certainly does hold up quite well, 53 years down the road.

I definitely give film-maker, Robert Aldrich, a lot of credit for his competent direction of this picture. I can't begin to tell you how thankful I am that he didn't allow its storyline to ride right off the rails into utter mayhem.

When Davis and Crawford worked together

[Petey-10 · 9/10 · 10 December 2008]

Bette Davis and Joan Crawford were the biggest rivals during the golden age of Hollywood.This is their only collaboration.In the beginning of the movie we're at 1917, where the six-year old Baby Jane Hudson (Davis) is a successful Vaudeville performer.Then we move to 1935 where her sister Blanche (Crawford) becomes paralyzed in an automobile accident for which Jane is held responsible.In the present-day of the film we see Blanche being kept as a prisoner upstairs of their mansion by the sadistic Jane.Robert Aldrich' What Ever Happened to Baby Jane (1962) is a terrific psychological thriller with some black comedy.The leading ladies are truly magnificent.Bette Davis was born a hundred years ago in 1908 and died in 1989.She could play all kind of roles and make the characters memorable.Baby Jane Hudson is that kind of a role.Joan Crawford lived from 1905 to 1977 and started making pictures during the silent era.Her Blanche Hudson is vulnerable and that's why we like her that much.A fine performance is given by Victor Buono who plays the shiftless musician Victor Flagg.Maidie Norman plays Elvira Stitt.Michael Fox, who the soap opera fans remember from The Bold and the Beautiful plays Motorcycle cop.This movie is a classic.

Could be at least a 9 out of 10 with 45 minutes of cuts

[BrandtSponseller · 7/10 · 1 February 2005]

Baby Jane Hudson (Bette Davis) was a child star with a sister, Blanche (Joan Crawford) who felt left out. Later in life, however, the tables were turned, with Blanche as a big movie star and Jane as a has-been. Most of the film, however, is set when they're in their late 50s or early 60s. Neither is very famous any longer and Jane must take care of Blanche. The only problem is that Jane is slightly off her rocker.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane is the first of two Bette Davis films, with Hush . . . Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964) being the other, which have a number of similarities. They are both psychological horror/thriller films, directed by Robert Aldrich, adapted from novels by Henry Farrell, with screenplays by Lukas Heller, both filmed in black & white in the early 1960s--a time when that began to be more of an artistic than a budgetary decision or necessity--and both very similar in tone, with Bette Davis as a "crazy old bat" in a big old house, interacting with a female rival, with major supporting characters as maids and men who are around as more submissive love interests, and so on. For many viewers this is the better film of the two, but for my money, I much preferred Hush . . . Hush, Sweet Charlotte. Even though my scores for the two films are close, the difference in quality for me was greater than my ratings would suggest, with Hush a 10 for much of its length--a slow, somewhat meandering middle section brought the final score down—-while Baby Jane never really rose above a 7, instead occasionally threatening to end up with an even lower score.

The main problem for me was that the slow meandering that was a flaw with the middle section of Hush is the norm in Baby Jane. I'm almost never someone who believes that a film should be shorter, but this is a rare case where a lot of liberal editing--say cutting the film by 45 minutes (the film is 134 minutes long)--could easily bring my score up to a 9. Of course, it also shouldn't be necessary to fix the film at that later stage, and we might just as well blame the looseness and pacing on the script. Some viewers might also find a problem with a few logical points in the script, but I think they're explainable if we were to spend time delving into psychological backgrounds and motivations of the characters.

Whatever the cause, as it stands, although there are some horror and/or thriller aspects to the film, it is really recommendable only to viewers interested in realist drama material, and even then, only to viewers who like that genre slow and relatively uneventful. (Although another point of interest to horror fans is that it's easy to see a number of at least superficial similarities between Baby Jane and Stephen King's Misery, which was made into a film in 1990.)

The performances are good. Davis is exquisite enough to make me almost wish that she had only played loonies and psychos throughout her career. Crawford has the difficult task of playing a complex, understated, physically challenging role. She goes through a number of subtle transformations, and somehow manages to look beautiful even when she's black & blue, bedridden and not wearing any make-up. Victor Buono, as composer/pianist Edwin Flagg, is able to convey a tragic underdog and provide comic relief at the same time, despite his relatively small amount of screen time. The performances are the crux of the film and the reason it receives as high of a score as it does. But they cannot carry the whole film. Despite a number of very good and occasionally horrific scenes, the biggest tragedy may be that film wasn't tightened up more. If you like Baby Jane at all, be sure you also check out Hush.

Confused grating disappointment

[kanerazor · 3/10 · 17 April 2005]

I am a huge lover of all films, especially classics and horror flicks. I had heard about this film for years and was really excited when I rented it, but was thoroughly unsatisfied by the product. Where do I begin...

The setup is very compelling. I loved seeing Jane as a talentless brat and Blanche as the quiet older sister who grows up to become the hottest actress in Hollywood while Jane turns into a drunk laughingstock. Then when it looks like Jane cripples Blanche, I was horrified and my eyes were glued to the screen. It was all downhill from there.

First of all, I have to take issue with Bette Davis's performance. I know that's sacrilege, but I couldn't stand her. I'm not sure how much of the blame should be divided among her, the screenplay and the director but her character was so over-the-top that it just became cartoonish at times. Some would of course argue that that's to the film's benefit, because they love the black comedy. I've heard that the film is a favorite of drag queens, and I can see why. But I think it severely undermines the film's merits as a HORROR movie, which is how it's almost always qualified. If they wanted to go the black comedy route, they should have gone farther with that b/c I thought as they did it things just didn't mix. Davis's caricature was such a glaring contrast to the sincere performance of Joan Crawford, as well as pretty much everything else in the movie.

Speaking of Crawford, though, I found her character mind-boggling at times. So it was established that Blanche has been trapped by Jane for all the years since the accident. Why couldn't she just leave? Surely the top actress in Hollywood would be able to afford personal care! Some fans might say that's answered at the end of the movie, but I'll come back to that. When Jane was torturing her that much, why couldn't Blanche at least call the police and say she was being held against her will? It's mentioned during the movie that Jane's started going insane, so maybe it hasn't been going on that long, but if Blanche doesn't even get any visitors ever, she must sense something's wrong. And then when Blanche goes through the INCREDIBLE ordeal of getting to the phone downstairs when she's home alone after Jane's taken out her phone, why doesn't she use that to CALL THE POLICE! Some might say she was concerned about Jane and wanted to get a doctor for her, but I'm sorry, when a character's such a one-dimensional doormat, I stop caring about here. If the ending is supposed to justify all this, well I think whatever Blanche did was more than made up for by the endless abuse Jane subject her to, and I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise.

When Elvira found Blanche, I was relieved thinking at least the movie was going somewhere now with Blanche about to be rescued. BUT WHY DID ELVIRA LEAVE THE HAMMER OUTSIDE WITH THAT PSYCHO RIGHT NEXT TO IT? Gee, who thought Jane would bash her head in? I was again happy when Edwin found Blanche, but he just ran off stammering! What the hell was the point of him even being in the movie? I'm thinking there just wasn't enough story to fill out a film otherwise. I thought he was just an annoying fat guy, and he turned out to be an annoying heartless fat guy. How did Victor Buono get an Oscar nomination for that? Why am I not surprised that people never saw or heard of Mr. Buono again after this movie?

While the movie had glaring flaws, I thought it would at least be great to see Blanche saved and Jane killed at the end. But instead, one of the worst twists in history was thrown at us! The only things the film had in its favor at any point were a sympathetic heroine and a contemptible villain. So what do they do at the end? Make Blanche responsible for her own trouble and Jane a lovable loon! Even if Blanche paralyzed herself, Jane kept her a prisoner, starved her, beat her, and berated her endlessly. And let's not forget SHE MURDERED ELVIRA! I'm not buying the mental illness excuse the movie tries-Jane was a monster her whole life and apparently towards the end became a monster unable to handle how pitiful she was. The pathetic attempt at shocking viewers just made me wish I'd never met either sister! Oh, and by the way-Jane's giddy dancing at the end? A RIPOFF of the INFINITELY superior Sunset Boulevard!!!!!!!

Disturbing, because it's real

[robertglass · 23 December 2003]

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.

Impressive Thriller

[ragosaal · 8/10 · 10 October 2006]

"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.

Reaffirms my need to stop watching modern films

[acdc_mp3 · 10/10 · 12 June 2022]

Watching movies that are being released today shows that the majority of movie goers rely on the sucking on the CGI teat to get them to come to the theater.

I watched "What Every Happened to Baby Jane?" today at the theater for it's 60 year anniversary re-release. I cannot say what a joy it was to watch this movie after being inundated with movies that are slopped over with CGI. It's been a long time I sat in a theater where I was riveted to the film because of the acting, story, cinematography, music, and pure art of movie making. It's an ongoing bet with my kids at how fast I will fall asleep when a CGI onslaught is presented, which as time goes on, gets to be quicker every time.

The movie has a bizarre theme where while it is really disturbing, there is comical aspects as well. They are interwoven with a skill that is apparent in many movies of that era and it never get old. Bette and Joan looked like they used their real life hatred for each other to fuel their roles but you also have to know there is respect given grudgingly as well.

Shot in black&white, using camera angles similar to Hitchcock, well composed and performed music, and a very solid cast of characters help mold this movie into a classic.

If you haven't seen this movie, see it and be surprised at how much you can enjoy a movie without CGI and teeth rattling digital sound.

The Movie Was Excellent

[ijahra-1 · 8/10 · 1 August 2006]

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.

Sibling Rivalry Between Hollywood's Leading Ladies -- At A Macabre Level.

[drownsoda90 · 9/10 · 4 August 2006]

"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.

Incredible thriller with two wonderful actresses. A must see.

[zumbertinho · 7/10 · 12 March 2013]

Wow. What can I say about this movie? The premise is ridiculous, but it's so well conducted that it turns out this is a very good movie with a very silly plot. I admit that some of the situations are very tense, but the whole thing is so absurd that half of the time I wasn't able to take this seriously. Some of the scenes made me jump from the chair or feel very tense, while others left me with a feeling of indignation, sometimes even like the movie was mocking me with its absurdness.

Joan's acting is prime, but her character is so dumb that, despite all the harassment, you won't be able to feel any sympathy for her (well, maybe in some moments you can, but most of the time you won't). Although the ending might explain some of her character's behavior, something doesn't really quite fit and it ends up looking like she's dull and apathetic for the course of the entire movie (and seeing that this is a very long movie, this is something that will bother you until the very last second).

Believe or not, this is my first Betty Davis movie. Her character is clearly the most interesting, specially when you compare the two sisters. I think she nailed down her unstable and problematic character, and I enjoyed her performance very much (and I'm really eager to see more of her movies).

The thing that was most displaced in the plot was the neighbor. She doesn't really have a part to play in the story (well, maybe once or twice), and I don't wish a neighbor that stupid to anyone. Overall, the acting, editing and soundtrack for this movie are really impressive, and I really don't understand how they made a plot like that into a very nice movie. This is really its biggest accomplishment, turning a very absurd and silly premise into a exciting thriller. If you watch this movie you won't regret it, and you'll see its 3 hours fly by.

Rating: 7,5/10 (I round ratings down)

Somehow, this is indeed compelling.

[lagriff05 · 8/10 · 29 March 2008]

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.

Applaud for Bette and Joan

[davispittman · 7/10 · 21 August 2016]

OK, so I knew I was in for some good acting when I decided to watch whatever happened to baby Jane, I mean Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. I'm not a huge Joan Crawford fan, really because of the woman she was in real life and the kind of mother she was, but I must say that her performance here is good, and boy so is Bette Davis's. Davis was not afraid to show her ugly side in baby Jane, and she sure did show it well! The chemistry between Crawford and Davis is electric and it really works well in the movie. The costume design is great, and academy award winning I might add. The writing is rather impressive too, the writing really shows janes crazy side, and it makes it blatantly obvious exactly what makes her go absolutely crazy. Seeing her sister Blanche excel in her acting career and her own film career burning out played the major factor is Jane Hudson's snap. I think this film is directed and filmed beautifully too, the camera angles are impressive, especially for 1962. Baby Jane has a couple slow spots, and the pacing is off on a couple places, but overall it's not a huge issue. With all of that considered I give whatever happened to baby Jane a 7/10.

Poison Personified...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 25 December 2022]

You have a sister and she lives on the first floor, you've been together for so many years and more, she's disabled from a crash, you'd like to take her head and smash, return to days when it was you that was adored. Increasingly you're becoming more unstable, your sister's accident is always on the table, you blame her for your troubles, a career beached in rubble, so you disconnect her routes by pulling cables.

Timeless and enduring with outstanding performances that to this day still take your breath away although Bette Davis is as good as it gets and surely provides the inspiration for the heinous Art the Clown.

Twisted sisters in classic 1960s nail-biter

[stephparsons · 7/10 · 5 January 2014]

Well there certainly ain't nothing' to like about Baby Jane, that's for sure! From precocious, spoiled, all singing, all dancing brat, to hateful, spiteful, drunken, crazy woman, Bette Davis pulls off the insufferable Jane Hudson with glowering panache. She stomps, she scowls, she shouts, she rants, she simpers, she pouts and, if that weren't enough, takes great delight in tormenting and torturing her crippled sister, Blanche (whose paraplegia she caused in a drunken rage). There is nothing to touch the aging Jane with her ever so scary make up and bi-polar-esque personality. Blanche (played by Joan Crawford) is also a tour de force in this movie, but as her life is spent almost entirely 'under the thumb' of Jane, she exudes 'victim' and often a rather simpering, precious one at that, which, even if intentional, is a bit annoying to say the least. The sisters' twisted life stories have lead to their current situation with Baby Jane's career fizzling out at a very young age and Blanche's acting career taking off in young adulthood and leading to much success, fame and financial stability. Although, without question, Baby Jane, is a movie classic, watching it with a modern (and possibly jaundiced eye) one cannot but spot numerous plot inconsistencies and clunky screenplay. Why, I ask myself, would Blanche ever, have acquiesced to her bedroom being upstairs?? She's not only a blinking cripple for crying out loud, she's now an imprisoned one! Or has Blanche spent so much of her life deferring to her sister due to pity for the poor dear's failed career, nutso personality, drinking problem etc that she simply can't be assertive? . It's hard to tell, but there are certainly times when one wants to ring Blanche's neck and scream 'stop being so bloody nice to her! She's a ruddy psychopath for Chrissakes!, demand a room downstairs!'

Finally, however, Blanche does wake up and smell the roses; she attempts to 'talk sense' to her demented sister about her (Jane's) 'illness' and the fact that their money is dwindling and shouldn't Jane see a doctor and stop spending so much? This sensible advice, plus Blanche's attempts at seeking help from the outside world, are the catalysts that drive Jane to ramp up her torture routine, and seek ways to bring in some cash of her own. She morphs quickly from shuffling, angry, blotto eccentric to simpering, 'controlled' (but actually madder-than-ever-woman. Blanche finally cottons on that her life might actually be in danger (about time too, you fool) but let's just say her efforts are non too successful . The ending to this movie is a tad confused, baffling and rushed, which is a shame because overall it really is a riveting horror/thriller. Both Davis and Crawford excel in their performances and it's unquestionably a 'must see' for any self-respecting movie buff.

I liked this movie better when it was called "Sunset Boulevard"

[ChrisBagley · 4/10 · 27 February 2010]

Maudlin acting. Manufactured coincidences. Even the premise was improbable: A woman agrees to live with the sister who maimed her? I don't buy it. The main thing the movie had going for it would have been the general plot line I was prepared to give the movie six or seven stars when I thought it might have been the first with that plot line. But it was at least 12 years too late. "Sunset Boulevard" had a similar plot line, and the differing details in "Baby Jane" weren't interesting enough or even plausible enough to justify another 195 minutes of film about aging Hollywood divas luring innocent dupes into twisted plans to regain fame.