User reviews

This film is a masterpiece! Vanessa and Lynn Redgrave show once again why they are both such successful actresses. This version of Baby Jane rivals if not surpasses the original with Joan Crawford and Bette Davis. Both actresses give astounding performances, and deserve the accolades of critics and the film industry for such a great movie. This film deserved better coverage and a wider audience.

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.

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.

I have mixed feelings about this remake. I'm not quite old enough to truly appreciate the first one, which would have been released when my parents were teenagers and my grandparents would have been in their 40's and would have been much more appreciative of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford and the shock of that movie. The first one was fantastic. However, I enjoyed this remake and watched it again over the holidays...having not seen it since the 90's. I think the Redgrave sisters did a really good job for this made for TV version. Big screen versus TV is ALWAYS different, and especially how dated even this '91 version is now. I liked it and it was worth my time.

There goes 90 minutes I'll never get back. I've seen the original too many times to count. I like the Redgrave sisters and was hoping for a good remake. No such luck. This loosely followed the Davis/Crawford original, but updating the movie was a bad idea and made it lose it's appeal.

I enjoyed this remake for what it is by not trying to compare to the original.( And I'm a huge fan of the original). Judging by the comments here few failed at doing the same I thought both Redgrave sisters did a fine job. Lynn had me laughing out loud with some one liners and it kept my interest. The writer and creator make no apologies. Give it another viewing . Just might enjoy it now in 2022. "Big fat rotten movie star".😜

Nothing can compare to the Davis/Crawford version, but I'm a fan of the Redgraves so it was worth the 90 minutes. Lynn Redgrave plays Jane quite beautifully imo.

The Original "whatever happened to baby jane" was such a classic. it can be considered a timeless classic but trying to make it all modernized just ruins it. this film was completely unnecessary. At least in the early 1960s, they were able to pull this kind of a story off because of the camera angles and the character types. but this film is just annoying especially with the closeup camera angles and the cheap cinematography, and baby jane looks like a clown. the performances were weak by the redgrave sisters, they looked like they did not know what they were doing at all. plus in the original movie, Jane plays a revenge trick on blanche by putting a bird followed by a dead rat on her cover tray which is one of the most famous scenes in all of horror history, in this film, it is a sandwich with worms on it followed by really dramatic music and then cuts off to the next scene..that was not fun at all and nowhere near as exciting as the original....there is absolutely no point in watching this movie so stick with the original classic!

I've seen the original zillions of times but have only seen the remake once all the way through, though I seem to remember getting in on the last part a few years later when I happened to notice that it was on again.

Either it was on again or else something similar to it.

I can only remember seeing it once.

One thing that especially impressed me about this one was that it seemed to me that the beach scene offered a glimmer of hope.

Blanche told the cops that her sister was in need of professional help so to please be sure that she got it--and I also had the feeling that help just might have arrived in time that Blanche's life also was spared.

This would mean that the two sisters would have another chance at a good relationship with each other instead of one being dead and the other either being permanently locked away in a mental institution or else a prison--and seen as "hopeless" either way.

There is a great deal of pathos about the original movie with Davis and Crawford. It is difficult to determine exactly how you should feel about the remake. It is so superficial, suburban and character-deficit. The former child star character has the infantilism of Edina on Absolutely Fabulous, except she isn't funny. Just kind of dreary and pathetic.

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.

Some films are such classics that remakes are doomed to failure before a word is spoken. This is one of them. In its favour, Lynn Redgrave seems to have enjoyed herself and her version of Jane was a lot less cruel than David's. Vanessa Redgrave seemed to be sleepwalking through the entire film. For me, trying to modernise it while also attempting to keep to the original film just didn't work. This is a picky point but the Redgrave sisters are very tall and watching Lynn trying to run about like a child was probably unintentionally hilarious. I'd say just watch the original.

Godawful, pointless remake doesn't engender sympathy or interest for anyone; it's shameless, ill-conceived and difficult to watch and so is Lynn Red-faced's performance. Wasn't Bruce Vilanch available? You gotta give her credit for shameless exhibitionism. Just look at The Last of the Mobile Hot Shots, her portrayal of to Xavier Hollander in The Happy Hooker, and in Smashing Time she looked like Jay Leno in drag, but this is an embarrassment as is the whole film which destroys any sense the original,campy Gothic had, and even if you haven't seen the original this amateurish, mean-spirited remake will make you cringe. The whole thing seems like a long, unfunny joke that was completed in single takes and even Vanessa Redgrave is useless. I think I know why this travesty is never shown.

Like other fans of the original, I put off seeing this for years, but finally gave it a chance. Some die-hard groupies won't like any remake--and that's a shame, because this should be rated on its own merits. By not trying to duplicate the over-the-top style of Davis and Crawford, the Redgrave sisters make the characters their own and turn in fine performances-especially Lynn. It isn't easy to bring realism to a character like Jane, and she's convincing: petulant, childlike, sliding gradually further into madness.

It's worth a watch.

Why do producers and directors think that by remaking a great film, they can improve on the original? Surely they would be at less of a disadvantage by taking an unsuccessful film from the past and remaking it - they would have the opportunity to improve the script, recast, new score, etc and turn a disaster into a success, demonstrating their brilliance in the process. Yet time after time, some genius decides that he has the ability to make a classic film better - if only their arrogance was matched by their talent. This turkey is a perfect example of the process but I'm sure it was decided that this would satisfy juvenile TV viewers who had never even seen a black-and-white film. If you've seen the Robert Aldrich original, give this a miss.

If the 1962 version had never been made this movie would be considered great. It's a great, tragic story with two great stars and it's really well done. The star quality of the Redgrave sisters is enough to carry the movie but Lynn's performance is astonishing. Vanessa is always excellent but her part is less showy. It's not a scene for scene remake and the characters are fleshed out a little more. I love the original and I am Davis' biggest fan but this movie can easily stand on its' own. It's fun to think of other pairings for the story (Elizabeth Taylor and Roddy McDowall would have been great fun) and I can understand why Lynn and Vanessa did it. It could stand to be restored.

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!)

"whatever happened to Baby Jane?" remains a stunning,horrific story well ahead of it's time (1962) Joan Crawford and Bette Davis left memorable & nightmarish examples of how to play a role for all it will get you! However, it's 1991 remake with the lovely and talented Redgrave sisters promised to leave viewers with the same creepy chills & thrills! Unfortunately, this simply dosen't happen here!

Don't get me wrong! The 1991 version of "Whatever happened to Baby Jane?" holds up as it's own story: set in modern-day Hollywood with it's all-too-familiar band of groupies,druggies,drag-queens & has-beens,who will forever lurk in the video stores and back streets, hoping to meet aging or ailing celebrities in order to "break-in" to the big-time! This TV movie actually draws the viewer in to a modern version of a hybrid between "Sunset Boulevard" and "Midnight Cowboy"

But, in deference to it's original.I must confess that as the ailing,aging Blanche, Vanessa Redgrave manages to hand in an adequate if not wooded portrayal.AS the nutty Jane,Lynn tries her best to NOT imitate Bette Davis and it does work-at least her portrayal is more remorseful and concerned about her crippled sister! In THIS version we actually FEEL for poor Jane as she's led to believe that SHE had caused the accident! When she finally learns the truth she actually seems to have been "set free" from 20 years of guilt,depressionn & alcoholism! Of course,it's too late now,we realize, as we watch the police chase her on the beach in the final shot!

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.