What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1991 Film)
Synopsis
An elderly, bedridden former movie star is "cared for" by her sister, who hates her and keeps her a virtual prisoner in the family mansion.
- Cast
- Coiffure
- Details
- Genres
Cast
Director
Producers
Writers
Editor
Cinematography
Production Blueprint
Set up Ornamentation
Composer
Costumes
Make-Up
Linguistic communication
Genres
Popular reviews
More-
I realised I was watching the wrong one 30 minutes in.
Fuck yous amazon prime number -
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
-
Equally a huge fan of the 1962 original starring film icons Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, I must admit that I have always been curious most this universally reviled fabricated-for-TV remake. Did this updated version demand to happen? Not really. Does it deserve to be scorned the way information technology has been throughout the years? Non at all. At that place's definitely some campy fun to be had here for u.s.a. hagsploitation enthusiasts.
The movie starts out kind of clunky for the first xx minutes or then, but then it finds its footing as former child star Infant Jane Hudson begins her spiral into murderous madness. I enjoyed the gimmick of casting real-life siblings Lynn and Vanessa Redgrave as the Hudson sisters. Lynn…
-
I'thousand breaking my own rule here by logging a Television set moving picture but the casting demands it. And the casting is all information technology'southward got going for it.
It was an inspired concept to cast Lynn and Vanessa Redgrave as Jane and Blanche Hudson but all of the hallmarks of early 90s Telly (perfunctory direction, lacksadaisical editing, inch-deep characterisation, insipid synch scoring that's pretending to be a full orchestra) sucks away the quality from the concept.
Lynn gives the improve operation - Jane is by a mile the more than interesting part of grade - but the casting of two talented sisters is not mined for its undoubted potential. Information technology did get me thinking though: in an alternate universe, I would donate a kidney to encounter the version with Olivia de Havilland every bit Jane and Joan Fontaine as Blanche.
-
What a tiresome, needless remake. How this movie wasn't scrapped halfway through and the costs eaten is as well me. Even going into the film total well knowing it's not going to touch the original still fabricated information technology no better. The best role of this pic is Amy Steel'due south cameo. Do yourself a favor and stick with the original.
-
Watched for Horror. Cult. Trash. Other. Podcast Episode 149.
I actually tin can't effigy out why anyone idea this would be a skilful idea. The original is a masterpiece and I didn't expect this to exist anywhere almost as expert but this is abysmal in every fashion possible. It's less army camp, the shorter runtime makes it experience rushed, Lynn Redgrave gives admittedly no energy whilst playing a role that is iconic because of how over the top it is and Vanessa Redgrave'due south performance isn't much better. It too features a subplot with a replacement grapheme for Edwin who wants to start a drag show with Jane because he needs the coin to pay off two underage twin boys who he has nude photos of… Somehow this odd storyline likewise seems to get the spotlight more than than the Blanche character. This is truly dire. Amy Steel is the only thing stopping this getting a one-half star rating.💩 / 💩💩💩💩💩
-
no joan crawford eyebrows
no bird
no rat
but there was a drag number??
and a nonce?? i think??i would sentry it once more tho tbh
-
Seeing Baby Jane Hudson in a 90'southward video shop wins the award for the most jarring scene I've watched in a flick in 2020 and then far.
-
At that place is no reason for this to exist. Nothing will ever come close to the original.
-
"I don't want to talk about it! Every fourth dimension I remember virtually something dainty, you lot remind me of bad things. I only want to talk nearly the squeamish things."
→ Jan 19' Scavenger Hunt
something with a QUESTION | 08 of 31
_______________________________________________________________________Guess who accidentally watched the remake instead of the classic? Since I (yet) haven't seen the classic I have zippo to compare this to. It's incredibly uncomfortable and seems to hold upwards to some of the tension that the original has. While I wasn't blown abroad I did want to know how the story ended.
Whoops.
_______________________________________________________________________[006/365 new (to me) movies in 2019]
-
A mere shadow of the original that adds unnecessary freakish elements that aren't needed, the story itself is bizarre enough.
Lynn Redgrave gives her own interpretation of the role non a slavish imitation of Bette Davis'south masterwork merely the reworked script does her no favors. Vanessa is wasted. Of greater interest to see the 2 Redgrave sisters working together than the vehicle they are in, for that stick with the genuine 60'south article.
-
An extremely effective updating of a chilling story, this remake grounds the military camp of the original in more realistic moderation while however conspicuously aware of its largely gay audience. The Redgrave sisters take these characters to totally dissimilar places and play off of each other incredibly well. I was particularly impressed with Lynn'south power to make Jane a sympathetic character, driven mad by nostalgia, isolation, and bitterness. And in that location'southward a surprise late in the film that takes things to places the original wouldn't accept dared but which feels pointedly perfect. I'1000 non sure how much can be credited to the novel, bucking the conventions and restrictions that kept the '60s film from being everything it could be. I really was quite surprised at how much I loved this. Recommended.
Source: https://letterboxd.com/film/what-ever-happened-to-baby-jane-1991/
0 Response to "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1991 Film)"
Post a Comment