Disclaimer: At time of writing this is the only review I have done where I did not see the original version prior to watching the remake. However, given the extraordinary pedigree (in no particular order, Spielberg behind the camera, and Hepburn, Dreyfuss, Goodman and Hunter in front) I decided to grab the old typewriter (keyboard) and dive in anyway. First the direction. Spielberg would rather have a root canal than leave behind to posterity any scene that is not perfectly lit and shot. So that's a non-issue. Hepburn? OMG what can I add that has not been said by the other reviewers? One of kind star presence. Five minutes of screen time with this lady is equal to two hours with any so-called modern actress. As for Dreyfuss, Hunter and Goodman what I really like about them is that not only do they do what is required, but they are relatively underexposed for the talent they deliver, and Spielberg kept each on a tight leash. (To see what happens when you don't keep these guys on a tight leash, watch Dreyfuss in Duddy Kravitz, Hunter in Saving Grace, and Goodman in just about anything he has ever done). As for final impact, I will say that the story is perhaps not for everyone and does take some time to build. But the payoff is there, and the reality of life and death is not going to change much over your lifetime, so, when you are ready to face either or both, this film will still be available for your viewing pleasure.

This film deviates from your typical Steven Spielberg movie. Intricate technological gimmickry was supplanted with a largess of spellbinding emotions that the movie "Always" implemented so astutely; as a result, the film, "Always" struck a very sensitively artistic nerve cord!! The focal song to this picture, "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" is seemingly appropriate with the genre of this film, and, the acting is spectacular!! Holly Hunter, Richard Dreyfuss, Brad Johnson, and John Goodman establish a cohesiveness in this movie that perpetuates a heartfelt empathy which is pertinent to the idealistic notions for which people perceive about the unexplained!! The kinetic energy, which is absolutely ubiquitous in the film "Always", induces the movie audience to construe the physical absence of Richard Dreyfuss' character as something which signifies a necessary spiritual guidance throughout the duration of the film!! In evaluating this movie, it does a remarkable job of making you feel fortunate for all of the wonderful things that have happened in your life!! The close knit camaraderie with every one of Hunter's and Dreyfuss' fellow workers, has an auspiciously enticing disposition for the delicately diligent procurement of this Spielberg masterpiece!!! The year, 1989, was one of my favorite years, thus making it easy for me to identify with the positive emotions that this movie has depicted! Understanding the gist of what a relationship has to offer is a critical component to making that relationship last!! My association with this movie is very positive; the emotional gratification to the film "Always", homogenizes directorial, and acting genius, such an aggregate wealth of talent, makes "Always" an incredibly fantastic movie!! I definitely recommend seeing this movie!! The cerebral comprehension to the film "Always" goes that extra mile, that is why this film is so amazing!! "Always" is, without question, a Steven Spielberg caliber flick, there are no two ways about that estimation whatsoever!!

More sentimental dross from Steven Spielberg, possibly his most sentimental film of all. Imagine the film GHOST made without the humour and likeable characters and you have ALWAYS, a simplistic yet overlong and slow-moving romantic story about a pilot who's killed before returning to Earth to grieve over his loved one. Yeah, I "get" what this is about, about loss and grief and moving on, but that doesn't make the film any good. Dreyfuss must play the most unappealing character of his career while the rest is just constantly hammered home without a touch of subtlety about it. The only interest lies in seeing Audrey Hepburn at the tail-end of her career. Not for me, thanks.