Some of this works, but it's a little more sentimental and a lot less grotesquely baroque than "Baby Jane," and consequently falls short of the earlier film's success.

Really good stuff, particularly the performances and the atmosphere. Still, it's no Baby Jane, and of course its hard to avoid the comparison.

"Director Aldrich's work on Baby Jane was already a study in hysteria, and his style for Charlotte is, if anything, even more ornate." - Eric Henderson

After lagging near the beginning as it sets up the present day story, this becomes a far more interesting film as it gets more stranger and creepy in tone. It pales in comparison to Bette Davis and Aldrich's previous collaboration 'What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?' but it is a fascinatingly odd little film.

A little predictable, but nicely creepy at times. Too bad insanity is just not my thing. See also "The House on Haunted Hill" (1959).

Wonderfully lurid chiller. Bette Davis is great, again

Davis is wonderful. Everything else? So so.

This is somewhat of a hidden gem - it's sort of the sister film to Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? And it is straight up one of the creepiest movies I have ever seen. The gothic atmosphere is done to absolute perfection, and the look of the film alone is enough to fill you with dread at times. It's also an excellent story, and gets more interesting as each layer is pulled back and the mystery starts to come together. Highly recommended.

Padded but generally enjoyable replay of elements from _Whatever Happened to Baby Jane_, with a large helping of _Les Diaboliques_. The stars help more than the director.

fairly uneventful for the majority, until the ending, and it's a whopper of an ending. bette davis is the only actor here to note, and even so she's not that good.

Hell... yes. Robert Aldrich, the king of vulgar, overdone cinema and a personal hero of mine, gives us this phenomenal southern chiller brimming with over the top performances, most notably from Davis and Moorehead, along with fine turns from de Havilland and Cotton. Fuck, I'm grateful such amazing actors ever got to do such uncouth material. This movie has it all: Plotting, hysteria, insanity, murder, dismemberment and George Kennedy. Everything great cinema was intended to be.

The plot of this story is great. The special effects, not so much. But, you have to remember, this was 1964

Reminded me of Witness for the Prosecution in that by the end of the film, all the twists and turns made me feel like I'd wasted a lot of energy. It's awesome to see Olivia de Havilland in this role since it's so different from Gone with the Wind.

at first when I was young, it was scary

As a psychological thriller in the same vein as Gaslight and Les Diaboliques, it's not bad, but as a "grande dame guignol" follow-up to Baby Jane, it's a little disappointing. The two films have roughly the same running time, but this one seems to drag much more. Perhaps because there's less humor and camp appeal here. Davis' performance is good, but not as compellingly weird as Baby Jane Hudson. It's an okay movie, though, mostly it just needs some trimming.

Grand guignol done right. Superbly shot psychological thriller with excellent acting from DeHavilland, Davis (who, even in the verge of becoming a caricature of herself, still had enough talent to create an interesting character) and the incredible Moorehead in a scene-stealing tour-de-force perf.