Welcome to a brand new edition of Rachel's Classic Corner. Last week, Rachel took a look at "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" and decided the film absolutely stands the test of time. Today, she examines Robert Aldrich's 1962 thriller "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" The film stars Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, and is based on a novel by Henry Farrell. Enjoy!

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

The plot: Two sisters, Jane (a former child star) and Blanche (a beloved screen siren) share a decaying Hollywood mansion after a crippling car accident, which left Blanche at the mercy of a jealous Jane.

Modern thoughts on a classic movie: In short, "Baby Jane" features an intriguing story mutilated by lengthy storytelling, a sloppy supporting cast, expendable subplots, and one over-the-top performance.

So much fantastic drama can come out of sibling rivalry, even when two bitter old broads are at the center of it. The captivating characters of both Jane and Blanche give enough material for any director to make a superb thrilling drama, yet Robert Aldrich falls short of that goal by having his film clock in at 135 minutes. The story probably has enough meat for a tight hour and a half script, with a little leeway for 15 extra minutes, so the remainder of the film is spent on long, dramatic pauses and superfluous subplots that leave the viewer anxiously watching the clock, praying something exciting will happen soon. Somewhere during the process of setting the mood, the heart of the story is lost. For example, at one point Jane decides she will revive her stage act again and hires a pianist to help her. This character serves virtually no real purpose in the end, and 20 minutes could’ve easily been shaved off the final product had that aspect been left out altogether.

As for the acting, the supporting cast favors the "I’m-reading-off-cue-cards" classical style of acting, lacking true emotion behind their empty words. In regards to the leading ladies, Joan Crawford gives a subtle, heartbreaking performance as the crippled Blanche who's forced to live in a small bedroom and is fearful of an unstable sister, while Bette Davis balances the film out with her loud and abrasive portrayal of crazy Jane. Well, Davis really doesn’t balance anything out, but instead attempts to steal every scene she's in. At times she plays the part of Jane with a stealthy, scary presence, but she quickly throws it all out the window in favor of a shrill, cackling, childish lunatic, leaving the viewer with little more than a headache. In the end, Jane’s crazed babydoll-like makeup was the only truly terrifying element about the villainess.

The final word: Does it stand the test of time? Not this one. Crawford’s performance is the only thing here that reaches beyond 1962 a modern viewer can connect with among the junkyard of dated antics "Baby Jane" has to offer.