"A lot of the films I've made probably could have worked just as well 50 years ago, and that's just because I have a lot of old-fashion values." - Steven Spielberg

Some points..

1. Though this film is a loose remake of "A Guy Named Joe", it also borrows heavily from "A Matter of Life and Death" and "Wings of Desire".

2. This was Spielberg's second attempt at being Frank Capra. 

3. Spielberg has often said that he wishes to make a "Frank Capra movie" in the vein of "It's A Wonderful Life" and "Mrs Smith Goes To Washington". Judging from his recent attempts to get a "Harvey" remake off the ground, it seems as though Spielberg still holds this dream, the director rightfully not satisfied with his last 3 ventures into Capracorn.

4. Critics at the time bashed "Always", stating that the elaborate action sequences distracted from the film's romance, but that's really not the problem at all. The problem is that "Always" needs a lot more special effects to distract us from the fact that Spielberg can't film any line of dialogue that doesn't end in an exclamation point.

5. The film is filled with comedy that just doesn't work. Spielberg's comedic tastes aren't very sophisticated, and seem to be ripped right out of 1950's screwballs and Looney Tune cartoons. These exaggerated antics may work in a cartoon universe, but in a film it just seems like an odd marriage.

6. The film's lead couple come across as brother and sister, not lovers. Spielberg's films have always being apprehensive toward sex and intimacy, but this film goes to extreme lengths: she's a wisecracking tomboy and he's a wisecracking old man. They're more irritating than endearing.

7. The film contains one good scene, in which John Goodman argues with Holly Hunter, but for the most part the film's characters are too annoying. There's no subtlety, every emotion overplayed, every joke over designed, every sequence filled with unnecessary busyness.

8. "Always" and "Hook" taught Spielberg how to con audiences. After their failure (and the twin financial failures of "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun") Spielberg dumped the goofy colour cinematography of "Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" in favour for the more desaturated "black and white" worlds of "Schindler's List", "Munich", "Minority Report" and "Saving Private Ryan". From here on, "less light" and "dark cinematography" became equated with "serious topics".

9. After the financial success of each "dark film" Spielberg reverts back to his colour cinematography, and falls flat on his face once again. "Amistad" followed "Schindler's List", "AI" followed "Ryan" and "Lincoln" will follow "Munich". These "colour" films are always bashed for being too tacky, sentimental, corny and hokey, but the truth is, if you removed the desaturation, all these "serious" films would feel the same way.

10. Since the 70s, Spielberg has tried to differentiate himself from the other brat pack directors (Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola etc), by pretending to be an "optimist" and "humanist". He would himself state this repeatedly during many interviews in the late 70s. The reality, though, is that he is probably the biggest sadist of all these directors, the very form of his films often undermining their content, their very box office performances always proportionate to their dazzling displays of carnage. 

11. The failure of Spielberg to connect with any of the characters in "Always", and the relish he shows, instead, for filming forest fires, air-planes crashing etc, perfectly encapsulates the rest of his filmography. People running from dinosaurs, sharks, Nazis, tripods, rocks etc...this is what Spielberg delights in. The moment his characters stop to speak, however, everything self-destructs. A film like "Amistad" failed, in other words, because not enough blacks died and too many whites talked.

12. The film's flying scenes aren't up to the standard's set several years earlier in the mega-hit "Top Gun". Of course, when your "enemy" is a forest fire, it's hard to make things cinematic.

13. Failures like "1941", "Hook", "Always" etc are often more illuminating that Spielberg's more successful films. They reveal the steel skeleton beneath the technique. They show what the amusement park ride looks like when its not working, revealing the vacuum beneath the broken machinery.

5/10  There's one good sequence here (two actors in a room, simply improvising), but this is mostly an annoying picture with a predictable script.

Worth one viewing.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative