Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I'm sorry this thread was started so late, but I only found out that it was my turn to post the Movie of the Month a few days ago, and I needed a few days to decide what movie to pick. I wanted to choose a movie from the 1950's because many of us are working on our Top 1950's Movies list for the upcoming MoFo countdown, but the more I looked at the list of my favorite 1950's movies, the harder it became to choose a movie. Unlike most of you, my favorite 1950's movies are mostly musicals and rom-coms, and I thought that it was a bad idea to chose a movie that most people would have no interest in seeing. So after a lot of thought, I decided to ditch my plan of choosing a 1950's movie, and I chose one of my favorite movies instead. (Just for the record, my 1950's pick probably would have been The Pajama Game (1957) if I thought enough people would have watched it.)

I picked the movie Always because I love the movie, but I rarely read anything about it here on MoFo. There seem to be a lot of Spielberg fans here, but for some reason, most people don't seem to even know that this movie exists. In fact, I think I've only read one review of it here, by JayDee, and he liked it. (You can read his review here, but you have to scroll down past his review of the movie 1941.)

Steven Spielberg is one of my favorite directors, and Richard Dreyfuss is one of my favorite actiors, so naturally, Always is one of my favorite movies. It's a remake of the 1943 movie A Guy Named Joe. It's a fantasy movie that is a romance, and a tear-jerker. It has some action, some comedy, some drama, and a lot of emotion. In my opinion, this is Steven Spielberg's most underrated movie.

As much as I love Always, I also have to admit that it's not a perfect movie, mostly due to the mistake of casting Brad Johnson as Ted, but the rest of the cast is perfect. The chemistry between Holly Hunter and Richard Dreyfuss is wonderful, and John Goodman is terrific as well. Sadly, this was the last movie appearance of Audrey Hepburn, but it's a great final role for her.

I don't expect everyone to love this movie as much as I do, but I hope that some of you at least like this movie enough to be glad that you gave it a chance.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Is that a good *lurk*, or a bad *lurk*? :confused:

What is a "good lurk"?

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

havent seen it,but i like the cast! I`ll have to see if i can find it somewhere :D

Not gonna guarantee that i'll watch this because i said i would with some of the others and didn't end up watching them, think i just forgot since the threads aren't bumped a lot. I will try though. Spielberg is a bit hit and miss for me, but the films i dislike of his are usually well made it just ends up something i don't enjoy. Interested in this one since as you said you rarely hear anything about it.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Great choice GBG, as Always. I've seen it before years ago and so I need a rewatch. I thought it was well rounded and like you say emotional. That might sound like a chick flick, but let me say that it has lots of well done action scenes so it's also aguy flick, or maybe better yet it's a everyone's flick...because Spielberg really packs in a lot of movie, into this!

I liked the drama and action of the two guys who are pilots who do aerial forest fire fighting and that's something we rarely see in movies, so it's a fascinating subject matter...and Holly Hunter is as cute as a button:)

If you guys have a hard time finding this, I'm sure if you PM gbgoodies, she can help you;)

I've never seen it; love the cast, and I look forward to it:)

On Netflix streaming

Awesome, that might get me to give it another chance for this.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Its not on netflix outside of america unfortunatly. but ill have a look around on youtube tomorrow,older movies are often posted full there.

I haven't looked for it online, but it shouldn't be a hard movie to find. According to Google, it's available to watch online on several sites.

Available on:
YouTube From $2.99
iTunes From $2.99
Amazon Video From $2.99
Vudu From $2.99
Google Play Movies & TV From $2.99

I think it's also available on Netflix.

Also, the DVD is available at Walmart and Target for under $10.

I hope you get a chance to watch this movie. For some reason, a lot of Spielberg fans haven't seen it.

Even though it's an emotional movie, I don't consider this movie a "chick flick". The love story part of the movie is important, but it doesn't overshadow the rest of the movie.

And I agree about Holly Hunter being "as cute as a button" in this movie. I didn't even know who she was before I saw this movie, but she's so loveable in it.

Thanks. :)


I'm glad you're looking forward to it. I tried to pick a movie that most people wouldn't want to avoid. (That's why I decided against choosing a musical.)


I hope you watch it. I'd like to get more people involved in the Movie of the Month, so hopefully an underseen Spielberg movie will do just that. :)

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I agree it's not a chick flick, it's well rounded. I think? this was Holly Hunter's big break out movie. And you say it's Audrey Hepburn's last movie? I didn't know that. She must have a smaller part, I don't recall her role, which is odd, because I always like Audrey in here movies.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I haven't seen it since VHS. I was probably 13 or 14 so it should hopefully be a much different watch.

Audrey Hepburn plays Hap, the angel who sends Pete (Richard Dreyfuss) back to Earth.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I requested the DVD from Netflix (I don't have there streaming service) but there was a 'short wait'...I guess people have seen this thread and requested it before me:eek:

Hopefully you'll get to see the movie soon, but it's nice to know that enough people want to see this movie that the DVD isn't just sitting around collecting dust.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

That's a very interesting choice gb! I didn't even know this movie existed, and I thought I at least heard of all of Spielberg's films.

One of the reasons why I chose this movie was because it seems to be a movie that a lot of people either don't know that it exists, or they've heard of it, but they've never seen it. I'm hoping that choosing it as the Movie of the Month will get some people to watch it.

I believe the reason I wasn't interested in seeing Always when it was out, was because I assumed it would be sappy and old fashioned. I was right, but that's not a bad thing since I like movies like that now.

My favorite significant stretch of the movie was the beginning, before the major event happened. Up to that point, I thought the movie could end up being a strong personal favorite of mine. I wasn't thrilled about the fantastical element that came into play, but this type of fantasy isn't a big letdown for me. I swear I've seen very similar stories before; I just can't remember offhand which movies. I do think this part of the movie could have somehow been done more realistically and better. I did not like the scenes with Audrey Hepburn as Hap. Seeing her in the movie gave me mixed feelings. On one hand, I was thrilled because I thought she passed on around the late 60's or early 70's. On the other hand, she didn't age well, and I would have rather not seen her like that.

The actor I enjoyed the most was Richard Dreyfuss, who I've always been a fan of. He's basically been completely insignificant for the past 20 years, and to see a performance of his for the first time while he was still in his prime was very nice. I also enjoyed John Goodman's performance. It was nice to see him be John Goodman instead of the caricature he has become. The other positive performance came from Holly Hunter, who's an actress I've always been fond of. Unfortunately, Brad Johnson offered nothing in what was a very important role. I thought his performance was a huge negative for the film.

I think the movie has a little bit of an inconsistent tone, but there are a lot of terrific moments. I think showcasing the job that these characters do was a stroke of genius. Their work is exciting and dangerous, and their ups and downs result in an emotionally satisfying movie. I think it could have been better in multiple ways, but any movie that makes me feel anything, is a movie that I give a lot of credit to.

-

Thanks for watching the Movie of the Month. :up:

Like I said previously, I don't expect most people to love Always as much as I do, but I'm glad that you liked it. Even though I love it, I can see most of the flaws that you mentioned, but for me, the good stuff in this movie far outweighs the bad.

I wish they had gotten anyone else to play Brad Johnson's role because as you said, his performance hurt the movie. (I read that Tom Cruise was asked to play that role, but he turned it down. I'm not a fan of his, but even he would have been much better than Brad Johnson.)

You mentioned that the movie has "a lot of terrific moments". My favorite scene is

http://www.top10films.co.uk/img/Alwa...lly-hunter.jpg

Hey guess what! I watched Always last night:)

I liked it to for the most part. It's one of those movies that have something for everyone. I myself, liked the fire fighting scenes...the scenes of the old planes flying low over the roaring fire to drop water & retardant to put out the flames. I thought the flying scenes and the forest fires were well done. I was on the edge of my seat! I really like the way that was filmed.

I knew the plane they flew was an old WWII plane, as you could see where the forward mounted gun turret had been mounted in the plexiglass nosecone. That plane was a Douglas A-26 Invader and rocked! I really enjoyed seeing the old planes in use. Oh...and the fire fighter air strip, that's in my home state of Washington. We have a lot of forest fires here and I live out in the woods so the fire fighting scenes were a big plus to me.

I have to agree with Cricket I didn't care for the fantasy scenes with Hap (Audrey Hepburn)...well in the hell is she named Hap? Luckily those were only a couple minutes long and are not a deal breaker. Oh...I thought Audrey looked great for a 64 year old woman, sad it's her last movie:(

The only other scene/character I didn't like was the old hobo, I thought that was over the top, which is Spielberg's trademark. But once again that scene is like 2 minutes max so no big deal.

Everyone said they didn't like the actor Brad Johnson who played Ted...agreed. He was an OK actor but he was physical wrong for the part. He has this leading man, alpha male look and when we see him we've been conditioned to think that type of guy has woman throwing themselves at his feet. So he just didn't suit the role. Though the glasses did help him look more humble. But he was way too tall and damn! Holy Hunter is tiny!

I could keep going on but I'll save the rest for any questions or thoughts GBG or anyone else has of me.:p

This is my second watch of Always. It is mostly the movie I remember it to be. The first half hour is really solid for me. I love the way Spielberg sets up his worlds and characters, and this film is no different. It never completely loses me, but comes close from the inevitable Dreyfuss conflict forward. It becomes monotnous and too sentimental. It also all but loses its sense of humor. I think a lot of that has to do with the character of Ted, who is the wettest of blankets in my opinion. Whether it is the performance or the way he is written, I don't know. That character just doesn't work for me at all. I loved Goodman, and I thought Hunter was solid. They have a scene that I think is the worst in the movie though. When Goodman goes to retrieve her. It is supposed to have a heavy emotional weight but it isn't earned at all. Not a terrible watch, but very middle of the road for me. Especially coming from one of the greats.

Thank You to those of you who are watching Always, and participating in the Movie of the Month thread. I'm glad that people are enjoying the movie, even if it's not likely to become a favorite for anyone but me.


I'm not sure why people don't seem to like the scenes with Audrey Hepburn. I loved seeing her in the movie, and I think those scenes are important to the movie because they explain why Pete has to go back, and what he's supposed to be doing. He's not there for himself or Dorinda. He's there for Ted.

I thought the scene with the old hobo had kind of an eerie feeling to it, the way the hobo heard Pete, but translated it inaccurately to Ted. While it's not one of the better scenes in the movie, I thought it was important to move the story along.

Have you seen the original version of this movie, A Guy Named Joe (1943)? It doesn't have the fire-fighting scenes, but I think you might prefer that to the remake because it takes place during the war.


For me, the Dreyfuss conflict is what makes this movie great. The emotion of watching Pete go from being so happy and planning his future with Dorinda, to him watching her moving on and dating another man is just heartbreaking.

Again, have you seen the original version of this movie, A Guy Named Joe (1943)? It's basically the same story, but it's less sentimental, so you also might prefer it to the remake.

Personally, I think the cast in the remake is better than the cast in the original, with the obvious exception of Brad Johnson vs. Van Johnson. Dreyfuss plays Pete more as a man who hurting emotionally watching Dorinda and Ted, while Spencer Tracy plays Pete more as a jealous and angry man, so it's harder to feel what Tracy is feeling. And Holly Hunter is so adorable as Dorinda that she's even more likable than Irene Dunne in the same role.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

How did you guys feel about the Rachel character and her scenes with Ted?

I liked Marg Helgenberger as Rachel, and I didn't like the way that Ted just kind of ignored her. I would have liked to see her end up with Ted. I thought they would have made a better couple than Dorinda and Ted. (IMO, Dorinda deserves better than Ted.)

But while I think of this movie being about Pete letting go of Dorinda, the movie is also about Dorinda moving on, so she's the subject of the romance, not Rachel. (Did that make sense?)

It bugged me too the way Ted talks all romantic to Rachel and so she thinks he's in love with her and she's on cloud 9 and very happy about, only to get a big slap in the face. That scene wasn't written well. There was no need to make Ted a heel and to so Rachel hurt just to convey the message that Ted is sweet on Dorinda.

Yup makes sense, and yup that is what the movie is about.

Ted is easily the weak link in the movie. I wish they had cast a better actor in the role. I think it would have changed the tone of the movie if Dorinda and Ted had good chemistry together. With Brad Johnson, I don't really want to see them end up together, but with a different actor, Ted might have been likable, so as much as it would have hurt Pete, I might have wanted to see Dorinda end up with Ted.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I can see that what you said makes sense.

I read a bunch of reviews of Always at IMDB starting with the hated it. I always learn more about a film that way. I swear everyone said, John Goodman was really good, most liked Holly Hunter, Richard Dreyfus reception was luke warm...and everyone hated Brad Johnson as Ted. (This was only the Hated It reviews. I didn't read them all.) I just thought it was telling that everyone seemed to agree on certain points.

"Richard Dreyfus reception was luke warm"??? :confused:

I thought he was great in Always. I was right there with him the whole movie. He made me feel everything that he was going through.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

That was only what the reviewers at IMDB said (collectively) when I read only the Hated It reviews (not all the reviews) I'm sure the Loved It reviews, those with high star ratings, had much different things to say. You can sort them by Hate It, Love It, Recent, Most Popular. I didn't have the time to read the other reviews.

I don't usually read the IMDB reviews of my favorite movies because it's kind of depressing the way some of those people pick apart movies.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Oh, just read the Hate It, but then go and read the Love It. It's just peoples opinions anyway. I only mention it because everyone seemed to really like Goodman and really dislike Brad Johnson.

I'm not surprised. John Goodman was great in the movie, and Brad Johnson was very badly miscast as Ted.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Yup. BTW I have A Guy Name Joe and I'm going to give that a watch one of these days.

I'm very curious to know what you think of it. I prefer Always over A Guy Named Joe, but I think the original is more your style.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I'm sure it is more my style:) A Guy Named Joe (1943) had the screenplay by Dalton Trumbo and that alone makes me want to watch it. It's also directed by one of the greats Victor Fleming and has a top notch cast: Spencer Tracy, Irene Dunne and Van Johnson. The guys seemed to really like Irene Dunne in the reviews I read.

So thanks to your Movie of the Month Always...I'll discover a new movie I've never seen!

You're welcome. :)

I hope A Guy Named Joe makes your 1940's list. It's a contender for mine.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Oh geez, I haven't even thought about the 1940s countdown yet.

We need some more people watching the MotM and posted their thoughts. With any luck the Podcasters will be doing their thing.

I'm always thinking about the MoFo lists. :D


I haven't heard anything about the podcast, but I hope they do one for this movie. I'd like to hear what they have to say about it.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

GBG, thanks for recommending to me, A Guy Named Joe (1943), As you said earlier, that was the movie that Steven Spielberg based his remake Always(1989) on. I read that A Guy Named Joe was one of Spielbergs favorite movies and he had loved it ever since he was a kid.I could really see where the young Spielberg found inspiration for his style of movies in it. I liked it too and I'm glad you mentioned it.:)

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Podcast scheduling troubles mean we might not get to do this one, but a couple of us are likely watching it anyway and should have some thoughts. :)

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I liked Always. It got an undeserved bad rap when it came out because audiences assumed it was a "Ghost" ripoff, but Always had started its production before Ghost. Overall...it was better than Ghost, but it didnt have Swayze & Moores sex appeal or Unchained Melody.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Always came out Christmas 1989, and Ghost in July 1990.

Thanks for watching both Always and A Guy Named Joe. In addition to A Guy Named Joe being one of Spielberg's favorite movies, Richard Dreyfuss also loves the movie. They talked about filming a remake as far back as when they were making Jaws.

It's disappointing that there might not be a podcast for this movie :(, but I'll get over it :). But I'm looking forward to reading your reviews of the movie :).

I hope people are just busy with other things, and maybe a few more people will watch it before the end of the month. (Or after the end of the month would be okay too. :) )

I love both Always and Ghost, but I never considered either one to be a ripoff of the other movie. Other than the idea of the guy dying and coming back as a ghost and watching over the girl, the stories are totally different. They're both basically love stories, but in very different ways, and they're both great movies.

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Decided to give it a shot, wasn't too impressed. Not to say that I hated it but it did feel awfully inconsequential.

I'd be interesting any hearing more of your thoughts on Always. It be interesting to see if you felt the same as I did. Most of us had some similar reactions. So Iros, what did you like about it? and what didn't work for you?

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I want to apologize to gb for not being able to participate in her MotM. I've barely watched any movies in the past couple months, only like 1 or 2 at home and Warcraft in the theaters. However, I'm thrilled that seanc and Iroquois participated. Hopefully more members will give this a shot in the future. I'm also hoping Yoda and the podcast crew will be able to watch it and share their thoughts, even if it's not in podcast form. :)

Thank you for watching Always. I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy it more, but tbh, after reading your review thread, I probably would have been shocked if you liked it.

Would you care to elaborate on what you liked and/or didn't like about it?

That's okay FW. Hopefully this thread at least put the movie Always on your radar, and maybe you'll watch it someday when you have the time. (And that goes for anyone else who's reading this and hasn't seen Always. Even if you can't watch it this month, hopefully you'll give it a try sometime in the future. :) )

I'm also glad to see that several people participated in the MotM, and I'm still hoping to read a few more reviews of the movie before the end of the month, but if nothing else, hopefully this thread got the MotM threads back on track for the next host. :)

I'm trying to be aware of the fact that the whole "dead person remains behind to help the living" premise is a well-worn one and shouldn't judge Always on its overly familiar nature, but I'm not so sure that it provides enough to distinguish itself. Some of the visuals are nice (such as the verdant patch of grass in the middle of a burnt-down forest) but it does seem a little drab compared to other Spielberg efforts of the era (especially since this came out in the same year as Last Crusade). Others have noted some of the weaker aspects (especially Brad Johnson), but while I do sort of like the main performers (especially John Goodman, who's always good even in bad roles), they don't really seem like they're given much to do for the most part. Given how thin the conflict itself is, it also feels like it could have been a little shorter. As a result, Always gives me the same vibe that I got when watching The Terminal - that Spielberg is a competent enough filmmaker so that I can't truly hate it when he takes on emotionally charged material yet I ultimately don't feel remotely enthralled by what's going on anyway (with the occasional exception, such as the ending of this film). I tend to feel like I'm watching the more emotional moments at a significant remove, which does make the film feel like a failure even when it's not doing anything grossly wrong. I do wonder if that's better or worse than outright hating it.

It sounds like you just didn't really feel the emotion in this movie. I wonder how much of that can be blamed on the poor casting of Brad Johnson as Ted. I had the opposite reaction to this movie, but only with Pete and Dorinda. I was totally drawn into this movie every time that Richard Dreyfuss and/or Holly Hunter were on screen. But it loses something every time Ted shows up.

You mentioned that the main characters don't really seem like they're given much to do for the most part. That's probably true for most of the characters, but I disagree with this for Pete, (Dreyfuss). This movie completely revolves around him. It's about his life, his death, him having to let go of his girl, and him having to help the new pilot, even though that guy is trying to get together with his girl. You should feel what Pete's going through while he's watching Dorinda with Ted, and when he helps Dorinda fly the plane at the end. I don't know how anyone can watch those scenes and not feel anything.

Thanks for watching the movie. I'm sorry that you didn't like it more, but I appreciate that you gave it a try. :)

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

I did watch this, but I kept my thoughts on ice in case of a podcast. I'll post them within the next few days. Thanks for hosting GBG!

Thanks for watching this. It's too bad that there's no podcast, but I'm looking forward to reading what you thought about the movie. :)

Re: Movie of the Month - June 2016: Always (1989)
 

Thank you GBG for hosting June Movie of the Month:)

We have a new host coming up for July! so stay tuned!:p

Let me start off by saying that while I did not get attached to the movie, it VASTLY improves as the movie goes on. Also let me thank GBG for choosing this sort of film, because I think we won’t get a lot of films like this to analyze. I usually kind of turn my brain off during these sorts of films, but I enjoyed analyzing the movie. That said, I enjoyed it mostly because I truly enjoy finding things I react strongly to, either positively or negatively (most of which will be negative for this film).

Also this is gonna be sorta disconnected, it’s coming from stream of conscious style notes. I tend to rely on other people keeping me on topic, so I apologize from the get go.

I’ll be a bit candid/harsh for a bit here, and say that I hated the first third of this movie. From the opening shot, where there was an honestly interesting shot of a plane dipping down into the lake to collect water, but then transitioned into a cheap gag. Right from that point, I was rooting against the pilot. It crossed that line between charming rogue and reckless endangerment.
Also I have in my notes, whatever happened to chewing gum? Dorinda is chewing very conspicuously. Maybe I’m imagining it, but I just remember chewing gum being EVERYWHERE in movies during my childhood (early 90’s). Was chewing gum actually that popular, or was chewing gum in this instance a PG analogy to chewing tobacco?

Netflix has a very spoiler filled tagline, so I knew going into the film that a pilot was going to die and act as a guardian angel. So strangely I went into the first sequence assuming he’d die (as opposed to the normal assumption of plot armor). Because of this, I was quite upset that it seemed like the headwinds turning against him suddenly was portrayed as the cause of his death, as in, sure he took risks, but that wind is just unfair! But then the wind turned back as Ted flew in (at this point, I made the mistaken assumption that Ted was the guardian angel pilot, which was quickly dispelled), still I didn’t really care for the device of the wind, but it was better than it being the cause of death.

When he lands, we’re treated to a walk and talk. And this is my least favorite section of the film (though I did learn that walk and talks really need good dialogue or they are just really annoying). I lost all empathy with the characters. They stand on the runways to jump out of the way (why?), she flies dangerously to prove a point, and after this intense back and forth, they’re just so glib about it all. It’s at this point that I have a thought that sticks with me for most of the film: It feels like I’ve been dropped into the middle of a sitcom where I know none of the characters, and everything is sped up ad nauseam.

The interactions where the characters should be upset with each other are brushed aside for wacky dialogue. You can certainly tell that there’s frustration, but there’s a stream of insincere humor that buries it all.

(By the way, this is a problem that I have with a LOT of films. It’s difficult to show intimacy between characters, so a lot of writers take a cheap shortcut where they show the characters interacting through almost pure humor. I wouldn’t have an issue with it if inside jokes and sarcastic back and forths weren’t consistently used to the near absolute exclusion of any other sort of portrayal of personal closeness)

The scene with the dress and the dancing reinforced the sitcom tone. I felt like I should know something about all these characters, and have some sort of inside reference to why this moment was important, but all of this happens in the first 20 minutes. It was disorienting, and aggravating. And honestly it felt...off… seeing this group of co-workers go “hubba hubba” over their own. But different times I suppose. (The one that acted differently from the rest was Al, who gave Dorinda a big bear hug when he had the chance, setting up a specifically non-sexualized relationship, and instantly giving me the notion that he was going to survive and be close with Dorinda and not be seen as a romantic threat)

Love is like a forest fire….uuuuuuuuugghghghghghghghhgh

(My main problem here is that I hate it when characters in a movie seem to contextualize EVERYTHING via their known traits. It could have worked, but in this case it felt really clumsy)

Ultimately, the pacing up to Pete’s death prevented me from processing any emotion. That and the death and resurrection were all too quick.

Luckily, after that, the film actually slowed down a lot.

Hap guides Pete through the guardian angel situation, but it all feels pretty inconsequential. Time speeds up, well that’s just what happens! They also spend all this time setting up this guardian angel idea, but it never really goes anywhere. We see two total spirits except Pete (unless I’m missing something), one is Hap and the other is the bus driver who is brought back to life. Except for Hap’s direct influence on Pete, we have all this set-up without showing any other effects of these guardian angels except Pete’s story. It makes sense to concentrate, but it felt like a wasted concept when it wasn’t explored any more than that.

Goodman’s scene where he yells at Dorinda for giving up is probably the best in the film. It was so well acted and serious that it actually felt out of place in this film.

The scene with the homeless man selectively relaying Pete’s messages to Ted, causing Ted to do exactly what Pete did not want him to, was kinda cliche, but executed well enough that it was entertaining. It was cute and it wasn’t sped up to the point of nonsense.

The last section of the movie actually had good enough effects and intense enough shots that I stopped taking notes for a while. That was actually decent. There was some emotional depth to Pete helping Dorinda fly (though it really seemed like the amount of fire between the fire fighters and the river seemed trivial enough that they could find some way through without being injured, I didn’t buy that at all).

After saving the firefighters, the rest of the movie makes sure to (almost) always keep Pete in pale blue light, giving him a ghostly visage. I liked this touch, and I’m glad they fit it in organically rather than just “making him” blue because he’s a spirit. It also set-up up Dorinda stepping out of the moonlight as an effective visual.

It wasn’t until after viewing that I let myself look up details about the film, such as it being a remake of A Guy Named Joe, which explains a lot. From what I read, it was very similar in tone, except trading the war for forest fires.

I didn’t watch Joe, but I’m much more forgiving of that film, but because I view it as propaganda; it served a real public messaging purpose needed at the time. A lot of guys were dying in the war, and this type of film was aimed towards the widows, trying to help them move on from losing loved ones. I’m more forgiving because it really had to get that one point across, and it had to do so on a more limited time. Spielberg had been thinking about remaking Joe since Jaws (apparently), and I don’t feel he justified it with Always.

Overall, I didn’t care for Always, but I liked it MUCH more as the film went on. That said, I think it was a really interesting and good choice by GBG!

This would have all sounded smarter if I got to sneak it in between Yoda and bluedeed’s more knowledgeable criticisms, but here it is, all the same!

Thank you for posting your thoughts about Always, but wow, that was a tough read. :( It sounds like you liked the choice of movie because it's not one of those deep movies that gets over-analyzed all the time, but you didn't like the movie itself. :shrug:

It seems that a lot of the issues that you have with the movie are understandable issues, but IMO, they're also kind of nitpicky issues because they're minor issues, (at least to me). I can overlook these types of issues and focus on the romantic side of the movie. That's what I love most about this movie, but it seems to be lost in your review.

We only see Hap and Pete as spirits because the story isn't about guardian angels in general. It's about one specific guy who becomes a guardian angel, and the fact that the guy who he's supposed to be helping is the guy who's going out with his girl. The conflict he's going through of trying to help Ted while watching Dorinda and not being able to stop her budding romance is what makes this movie so emotional.

I always felt that the scene with the bus driver was supposed to make Ted a likeable guy, so we want to see him and Dorinda end up together, but it doesn't really work for me because Brad Johnson made the character too unlikeable before we even get to that point in the movie. He's just such a dull character, that it makes me want to see Pete and Dorinda back together, but obviously, that's not going to happen.

I would have loved to hear a commentary on this movie to see if the other people felt the same way as you did about it, but sadly, that's not going to happen. :( Hopefully if, or when, they watch it, they will post their thoughts here too.

If you ever watch A Guy Named Joe, I'd be interested in reading your review of it. I'm curious if the same basic story, but set in wartime, would be a better movie for you.

Yeah, I liked taking a close look at a movie where I'm not the target audience. It means I'm less likely to enjoy it, but it's a different experience. I wish I had a more positive reaction, but I thoroughly enjoyed going through it. I also admire your toughness, because I'm sure that some of the movies that I'm nostalgic about wouldn't be liked by others. But actually it looks like the rest of viewers had a decently positive experience for the most part! Sorry to be the most sour on it!

I actually might look that up. After the Lion In Winter I looked up the newer version with Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close, but actually I really disliked the acting and direction, I couldn't finish it. I'm curious if I'd like that one much more.

I do think that I'll automatically give it more credit. Kinda like how I think the pro-intervention in Europe aspects of Casablanca feel kinda tacked on, but I forgive it a bit because of the temptation of propaganda during wartime (and possibly the justification for the film in the first place).