Simply A Masterpiece

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Blistering performances.

One of the most fun and ingenious temporary trends in horror cinema history undoubtedly were the "horror hag" movies from approximately the mid-sixties until the early seventies. These were bizarre drama/shock flicks starring elderly and most respectable dames in demented roles, such as insane murderers or mad-raving battle-axes. Director/producer Robert Aldrich should be considered the founding father of this trend and, even though there were several obscure but incredibly entertaining imitations (see below for more than just a handful of recommendations), his "Whatever happened to Baby Jane" and "Hush Hush, Sweet Charlotte" are still the only ones that stand as classic efforts nowadays. Aldrich was also responsible for "Whatever happened to Aunt Alice", albeit as a producer instead of a director, and perhaps that's the sole reason why it isn't a classic as well. Or perhaps not at all, because "Aunt Alice" is totally different than "Baby Jane" and "Sweet Charlotte" even though certain sources refer to it as the closing part of the trilogy. Geraldine Page amazes as Mrs. Claire Marrable, a totally bonkers widow whose industrialist husband left her nothing but financial debts and a lousy old stamp collection. Since she doesn't want to give up her luxurious and fancy life-style, she decides to slay a series of poor old housekeepers for their savings. Not a very profitable business, if you ask me, because how rich can you possibly get from the money of a bunch of grannies that have to clean houses to survive? But anyway, Mrs. Marrable buries the bodies under pine trees in her Arizona desert garden and gets away with it. That is, until Mrs. "aunt" Alice Dimmock applies for the vacant housekeeper position. Dimmock (the equally impressive Ruth Gordon) has a hidden agenda, as she undercover wants to find out what happened to her friend Edna Tinsley who mysteriously vanished after working for Mr. Marrable. The big difference with the other Aldrich hag-classics (and simultaneously the main default of this particular film) is that everything solely depends on the dazzling performances of the leading ladies, whereas the other two also feature a sinister atmosphere, dark house settings and black & white cinematography, convoluted plot twists and macabre set pieces. The script doesn't contain any real surprises (except a reasonably good one at the very end) and L.H. Katzin's direction lacks confidence and vision. In spite of some noteworthy sequences, the film honestly isn't that great and only worth seeing for Page and Gordon.As promised, here are some recommendations in case you're interested – and you really should be – in seeing more "horror hag" movies. Following the immense success of "Whatever happened to Baby Jane" and "Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte", the lead actresses obviously became typecast a number of times. Bette Davis appeared in Hammer's "The Nanny", while Joan Crawford went much further over-the-top in delicious camp flicks like "Strait-Jacket" and "Berserk". Hammer Studios also produced the shamefully underrated "Die! Die, My Darling" starring an amazing Tallulah Bankhead. Shelley Winters also became a famous hag thanks to the double feature "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?" and "What's the Matter with Helen". Last but not least I also warmly recommend a couple of uniquely eccentric titles like "The Beast in the Cellar", "Frightmare", "Homebodies" and "You'll Like my Mother". Happy hunting!

Few weeks ago I got hold to a copy of Ursula Curtiss' novel "The forbidden garden". Although not without its' flaws, it was a very enjoyable read - the plot premise was interesting, and how Curtiss plays with different narrative points of view was fascinating: Part of the novel is told through the eyes of a ruthless murderer, part is told through the eyes of a more or less uninvolved observer. The role of a third protagonist is unclear to both of them, and both draw very different conclusions. While reading, I thought that the book would make an interesting movie, though hard to make. Then I found out that they did make a movie out of it - WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO AUNT ALICE?, from Robert Aldrich's studio. Apart from the campy title, which is a not-very-subtle reference to Aldrich's WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE, I thought the movie must be great with all the acting talent involved (Geraldine Page, Ruth Gordon, a young Rosemary Forsyth). But boy, was I wrong! Boy, did they butcher the book! And what a waste of talent it was... but let's start at the beginning. As I told before, the main protagonist of the book is a ruthless murderer - I'm not spoiling anything here, because it's told on the very first page of the book and during the first 5 minutes of the film: The serial killer actually is a seemingly frail, elderly lady of about 70 who nobody would ever suspect of such things. That's actually one of the main points that make the plot interesting. She hires a housekeeper-companion, a 50something, practical woman who is not what she seems to be. Let's switch to the movie: Geraldine Page, 45 when the movie was made and made to look only very slightly older, plays the murderer - she's very healthy-looking throughout the movie and not at all frail. The housekeeper, on the other hand, is played by petite, frail 70ish Ruth Gordon. Damn, what were they thinking???? Does that make any sense at all? It turns the interesting plot line upside down and makes it uninspired instead of fascinating. Both actresses give tour de force performances, but they are so blatantly miscast that they can't save the film. If they simply had switched roles, maybe the whole thing would look different. But no, it's just very bad, trashy "old lady's horror", a cheap copy of BABY JANE. Rosemary Forsyth has a very thankless role as the girl next door, the observer in the book, who is for no obvious reason given a tragic past (her husband died recently) and who gets a very dull romantic subplot of her own (which was there in the book, but covered no more than 3 pages) with wooden Robert Fuller, whose minor role in the book is in turn expanded. What was interesting in the book (the different perspective of the girl next door) was left out completely in the film. Then there's her nephew, who is portrayed as a difficult child and plays a key role in the novel - here, he is given minimized screen time and the usual "annoying brat" treatment. The only characters that seem to come right from the book are the old lady's nephew and his wife, especially Joan Huntington is genius as a bitchy socialite. But that's cold comfort. The film manages to make a decent showdown, but the ending is less than satisfactory - again, for no logical reason changed, since in the book the punchline was the appearance of a most unusual angel of vengeance, while the film gives us a very conventional solution with an uninspired, run-of-the-mill ironical turn. Adding to the underwhelming experience are the overall cheap look and a grating, fingernails-on-the-blackboard musical score. And what's that with all the senseless name changing? (Not very comprehensible is, for example, why young Harriet Crewe gets to keep her rather old-fashioned first name, but her last name is changed to Vaughn???)

Shrewd, resourceful and formidable old battleaxe Claire Marrable (superbly played to the icy hilt by Geraldine Page) loses both her husband and her affluent lifestyle. Ms. Marrable moves to Arizona, starts a pine tree garden, and begins bumping off her elderly housekeepers for their life savings so she can continue living high on the hog. Ms. Marrable meets her match in her new housekeeper Alice Dimmock (a terrific performance by the wondrous Ruth Gordon), a cheery, smart and resilient little firecracker who suspects that something is amiss. Director Lee H. Katzin and screenwriter Theodore Apstein expertly create a deliciously sinister atmosphere, relate the engrossing story at a steady pace, and top everything off with a wickedly funny sense of pitch-black humor. This movie further benefits from fine acting from an excellent cast: Page really sinks her teeth into her juicy evil old bat role, Gordon projects her usual winningly spunky charm as the endearingly feisty Ms. Dimmock, plus there are sturdy supporting contributions from Rosemary Forsyth as sweet young widow neighbor Harriet Vaughn, Robert Fuller as the dashing Mike Darrah, Mildred Dunnock as the timid Edna Tinsley, Joan Huntington as Ms. Marrable's bitchy niece Julia Lawson, and Peter Brandon as Julia's conniving stockbroker husband George. The very ending offers one doozy of a marvelously ironic surprise plot twist while the arid desert setting adds to the overall creepy tone. Joseph Biroc's lush, vibrant cinematography makes neat occasional elegant use of fades and dissolves. Gerald Fried's moody, shivery, string-laden score likewise hits the spooky spot. Best of all, it's a total treat to watch Page and Gordon bounce off each other as they engage in a deadly game of wit and wills. A hugely enjoyable fright feature.

In 1962, director Robert Aldrich delivered, to an unprepared world, the amazing spectacle of aged Bette Davis and Joan Crawford going at each other and chewing up the scenery in "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" Two years later, Aldrich followed up with "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte," with Davis, Agnes Moorehead and Olivia de Havilland engaged in similar nasty hijinks. And in 1969, Aldrich handed the directing reins (producing only this time) to Lee H. Katzin, for what may be viewed as the third in a loose trilogy of films dealing with geriatric battleaxes (or aging gargoyles, as my buddy Rob prefers to call them) having at each other with no quarter given. In "What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice?," Geraldine Page plays Claire Marrable, who moves to Tucson after her husband dies and leaves her penniless. What's a poor aging biddy to do...except knock off a succession of equally aged housekeeper-companions, steal their cash and plant their remains in the garden? But Claire may have met her match with her next job applicant, Alice Dimmock, played by the forever feisty Ruth Gordon.... As regards those killings, they are almost completely bloodless, and any comparisons that may have been made to 1944's "Arsenic and Old Lace" may be fair ones. But this is hardly a comedy (well, maybe a very black one), and it really is something to see Page and Gordon ripping into each other like two frenzied berserkers. The film makes excellent use of its desert locale, and Gerald Fried's bizarro score keeps the tension ratcheted fairly high throughout. The picture concludes rather realistically, albeit tamely, I feel; how much more satisfying would it have been to see Claire really go up against the vicious tramp dog, Chloe? No telling WHO would've prevailed in that bitch fight!