Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte

Oh yeah! This was far more enjoyable than Baby Jane, full of southern gothic atmosphere with twists and double-crosses throughout. It owes a lot - maybe too much - to another celebrated thriller, [title withheld due to spoilers], but it's very enjoyable just the same. Free advice to all the would-be criminals out there: don't discuss the details of your scheme in places where your intended victim might very well hear you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Melodramatic and over-long psychological thriller with some serious scenery-chewing by Bette Davis. Despite its flaws, the elegant B&W photography creates a satisfyingly spooky atmosphere and when the end comes, it packs a surprisingly effective punch.

Had a blast with this one. Much more my bag than "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?".

Pretty good.

Modern PC-types may complain about the "hagsploitation" genre, but this provides Davis with another fantastic role for any actor, male or female. It's so unusual to see such a strong female character - esp an older one- for a film of this period, that alone makes her watchable, but the character itself is such a maelstrom of emotions, she's always the most interesting thing on screen for 30 minutes. Unfortunately, things start slowing down a lot & end w/ a twist you see coming very early on.

Davis is wonderful. Everything else? So so.

Viewed April 15, 2020.

Nice "Southern Gothic" atmosphere but drags. Somewhat redeemed by the ending.

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.

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.

Wonderfully lurid chiller. Bette Davis is great, again

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.

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.

Wow, Olivia certainly bared her fangs in this one! And Agnes Moorehead was like Granny Clampett on a bender.

An unofficially sequel to Aldrich's big hit What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? this is another Southern Gothic/Grand guignol/hagsploitation starring a great Bette Davis and this time Olivia de Havilland who brings class to her character. It's a good gothic atmospheric psychological thriller, which you want from this kind of movie, but it keeps feeling like a lesser copy of Baby Jane.

81.000

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

Nobody can nail psycho-biddy quite like ol' Bette, but after a while they all sort of feel like it's one really long movie. Even this one started to feel a little too long, although it does wrap a pretty interesting drama throughout. I liked Moorehead in this; I wish there was a little more Cotten.

watched: 2013, 2023

Konstig film. Snuttvis är den riktigt bra, men i längden blir den riktigt riktigt tråkig. Skådespeleriet ligger delvis nära buskisnivå och personkemin mellan de Havilland och Davis är helt frånvarande. Handlingens trovärdighet är inte bara låg, utan väldigt låg och som skräck fungerar den inte alls. @BRYANT PARK, NYC.

"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

Atmospheric psychological thriller with a great cast.

at first when I was young, it was scary

A couple of years after Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, Aldrich returned to that well with a quite similar in many ways story again starring a game Davis. Instead of Crawford, Olivia de Havilland is opposite here here, in a rangy performance. The rest of the cast is fun as well, including Bruce Dern in his first film role with an actual character name. It could be a bit tighter--it drags at times, but there's a lot here to like.

I guess I don't get southern gothic melodrama.

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

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