What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Oh, golly, Ladies!! WHY??

I just....I am SO sorry!

(Kudos to the house, though, reprising it's classic role. You've still got it, kid!)

Watchable but unnecessary remake. A vanity project I assume. And a chance for the Redgrave sisters to work together. Missing the suspense of the original.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1991)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Remake of the 1962 cult classic has Lynn Redgrave taking over the role of Jane Hudson from Betty Davis while Vanessa Redgrave takes over the role of Blanche, originally played by Joan Crawford.

There's really no point in going through the plot description because I'm pretty sure you already know if if you've seen the original. If you haven't seen the original then I'd recommend you stop reading this and go do so. While I found the original film to be flawed in certain aspects, there's no question that it was a classic thanks in large part to the wonderful lead performances. I'm very much pro-remakes as I think they can often be quite interesting in the new things they bring to something that is familiar.

With that said, this remake just doesn't work for a number of reasons. The biggest problem I had with the film was the fact that it was incredibly dull. I mean, there wasn't a single ounce of life to be found in this thing as the movie gets off to a very slow start and it just becomes more and more dull as it moves along. Director David Greene doesn't bring any sort of life, tension or atmosphere to the picture and I'd argue that everything that worked in the original film is pretty much watered down here.

Another major issue is the fact that there's just no tension between the sisters. There's not a single frame where you really feel for the Blanche character because her torments just aren't all that shocking and they contain minimum impact. It doesn't help that both characters are extremely dull here and that's especially true for Baby Jane. Trying to match what Davis did would be impossible but Redgrave just doesn't do anything with the part.

I enjoy made-for-television films but this one here falls into some pretty bland traps through. In case you've missed it, I've used the word bland and dull throughout this review. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? has a couple interesting changes including the reason behind Jane's mental breakdown throughout the film. I also liked some of the updated stuff including Blache becoming "known" again thanks to VHS. With that said, turning Jane into a pop star was just painfully bad.

An excellent remake of the 1962 classic, with real life sisters Vanessa and Lynn Redgrave in the old Bette Davis and Joan Crawford roles.

I am a big fan of the original film, and was pleasantly pleased when I watched the remake and it was a lot better than I thought it would be.

Although based on the same story, the events in the two films are staged completely different, which was good because I can't stand a remake that is just a total rip-off of the first film.

The basic story is as follows...

Jane Hudson (Lynn Redgrave) is a former child star who was forgotten when her sister Blanche (Vanessa Redgrave) became famous and stole all of Jane's former success.

Now middle-aged, the two sisters live together and Jane takes care of Blanche after a horrific accident leaves Blanche unable to walk. When a TV network starts to show a season of Blanche's old movies, Jane's forgotten jealousy returns, as she has always held her sister responsible for the loss of her career...

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. 4 stars.

My philosophy on remakes is if you can't outdo the original, why bother? Although there are several remakes that I like, this is one of those "why bother" films. Don't get me wrong, the cast did a decent job with what they had to work with, and it was interesting to see the characters moved into the ‘90s, but where the original had a little too much backstory this version didn't have enough. But allowing time for commercials took away from the story, leaving this version nearly an hour short of the original. It was interesting to see the characters moved into a world with video stores, prostitutes, and drag queens -- which may be the only saving grace for the remake.

I saw this version when it premiered, but didn't yet know the original, thus I didn't care for it that much. Seeing it again over 10 years later, now that I've seen the Davis/Crawford version, it made me like this one slightly better, but only slightly. The original is deservedly a classic, and the behind-the-scenes story is just as, if not more, interesting as the movie itself. When it comes to this version, there were no behind-the-scenes battles, being as the leads are real-life sisters.

At the beginning of this version, the Redgrave sisters seem to be more friendly towards one another than Davis and Crawford were at any point of the original, but it still works. Lynn does a descent job as over-the-top Baby Jane, but she only plays it over-the-top, unlike the schizophrenic portrayal that Davis gave. Vanessa, on the other hand, lacked the depth that Crawford had as Blanche, which made her seem less like a victim and more like she just can't act, particularly the closer it got to the end of the film. Case in point, the final scene. Where Crawford gave an honest, breathless confession on the beach, Vanessa Redgrave studders her way through the dialogue as if she's reading it from cue cards perched above her head. John Glover, taking over the Victor Buono role, did a good job with his part, though it was a little disconcerting seeing the character in drag (though Buono could have never pulled that off).

At the very most, this version was interesting. ‘Nuff said.