Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Pretty Good

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Really enjoy Barbara Stanwyck and will watch any movie she's in. She can shore up even the most humdrum potboiler with her acting talent and make any picture better. Her mettle was tested in "Always Goodbye", a picture with nothing new to add to the romance genre, and she did the best she could. Alas, she was done in by a flat script and uninspired dialogue and despite an excellent support cast, featuring Herbert Marshall, Ian Hunter, Caesar Romero and Lynn Bari, among others. I'm not sure anything short of a rewrite could save this rehash of many other similarly themed pictures.This picture was shown in error at Film Forum in NYC; The 1931 film with the same name was supposed to be shown but somehow this was substituted. Right now I would rather have seen the older one. Sight unseen, I'll bet it was better than this plodding trudge through the landscape.

Can you imagine showing this film today in a renewal house? "Little Black Sambo" story was banned way back when. In today's politically correct atmosphere? I never understood why it was banned. Its true, the story had it laid out I presumed in Africa and the boy was black, so what was it that offended? As for the movie, I see the year was 1938 which meant that either the film was made in 1937 or in that year itself. Certainly things have changed since. But I found the story a bit too cute for words. That story line was played to the hilt during that period. If it wasn't Barbara, it was Lombard or Harlow, or Loretta Young doing the suffering..

I just recently read someone's comment about another movie from the 1930s (don't remember which), to the effect that movies from that era tended to be good but 'slow paced.' Watching ALWAYS GOODBYE brought that comment to mind because of how untrue that assessment is of it. I was kind of amazed at how much story and time were covered within the first 12 minutes (and that's including the credits); no time wasted, and all clear. I won't go over the story, to avoid spoilers, but will say the characters were very well made, acted well, and I cared about them (or, in one case, disliked that one pretty intensely). All in all, I recommend this movie pretty highly. The ending was what knocked my rating of it down a bit (from an eight to a seven) All the actors were good in this. Barbara Stanwyck really is lovely, softer than many of her roles allowed (though subtly tough, when she needs to be), and Herbert Marshall is so sympathetic (and handsome), you can't help but root for him to get what he wants. Johnny Marshall, as the little boy, is just charming and (to me, at least) not grating as some kid actors could be. While the humor provided by Cesar Romero's character was perhaps slightly over the top, it was welcome, and he was undeniably handsome. As another reviewer pointed out, he was also a hell of a dancer, and Stanwyck looked like one too, in his arms. Lynn Bari was excellently effective. Binnie Barnes was fine, with not a whole lot to do, given her talents, and Ian Hunter the same. There was even the luxury casting of Franklin Pangborn in a tiny role. I was interested in the Short French conversation between Romero and character actor Ben Weldon, as to whether they both actually spoke the language. Their lips seemed to move precisely with the words, in any case.SPOILERS BELOW!!!! SPOILERS BELOW!!!: SPOILERS BELOW!!! The only real problem I had with this movie was the ending. As in so many movies, one grows frustrated that open, honest, truth-telling conversation is apparently so out of the question. I felt there was another way for all to retain honor and kindness, and bring a different outcome. I know we're meant to see it as Stanwyck's character being noble and, in a way, making a great sacrifice (though in another way, not at all--arguably, being selfish; one could see her motives at the end as really equating, in a way, to those of Lynn Bari's character). Marshall's character, too, is meant to be sacrificing for an honorable cause, but I feel the cause is all wrong for both of them, and honesty would serve better. Given the situation (Hunter's character knowing the basic fact of his son's background, and his wife having been dead for some time), I don't think it would have broken his heart to know the rest of the story. Also, Stanwyck marrying him is setting up a very bad situation, which doesn't have to be. And his sudden declaration of love, having barely gotten to know Stanwyck's character, and having only just gotten out of an engagement, makes me doubt the importance and veracity of his love. Better to be honest with him, about everything, and work things out. And, yes, I know times were different, but even so, this seems doable in that context. Besides all that, there is the matter of Stanwyck's original intended's family, and whether it was fair not to let them know about the child. Anyway, still a worthwhile, quality movie.

You're about to marry the man you love, but suddenly he's dead after a tragic accident. Now you find you're pregnant. Keep the baby? Give it up for adoption? Oh, I forgot to mention it's 1938, when illegitimacy was a total scandal and could ruin a young girl's life. And when you're Barbara Stanwyck, you can do one of several things. If you're Stella Dallas, you raise the child the best you know how and give it all the love in the world. But if you're Martha Ivers, Thelma Jordan or "Double Indemnity's" Phyllis Diedrickson, you scheme to get what you want, no matter what. This isn't the jingling jeweled Stella or any of those ruthless film noir broads; This is Margot Weston, an unlucky lady who manages to become a popular fashion designer, and when she finds her child aboard an ocean liner, she innocently schemes all she can to spend as much time as she can before the ship reaches New York.Once in New York, Margot meets her child's adoptive father (Ian Hunter) who is engaged to a rather selfish socialite (Lynn Bari) who has about as much interest in raising children as Hitler had in Democracy. Margot is a lovely lady with two suitors-a Latin lover (Cesar Romeo in a very feisty performance) and a good doctor (Herbert Marshall). So now she has another dilemma-accepting one of their marriage proposals or doing all she can to get Hunter to propose so she can be with her son for good. She knows that Bari will not be a loving mother, so letting her raise the young boy (an adorable Johnny Russell) is out of the question.A remake of 1934's "Gallant Lady", this version of an otherwise maudlin story is actually quite lively and a bit more comic than its original. That version starred sob queen Ann Harding, but there is a ton of difference between her and Stanwyck, so this late 30's version lacks the tear-jerking element of the original. That's OK, because the result is a very entertaining mother love drama that has soap opera elements but not the pathos. Stanwyck gives a superb performance as a woman who won't cry today or tomorrow over yesterdays, instilling her with a likability that burns a hole through the movie screen. Hunter and Marshall were practically interchangeable as actors, so to see them in the same film together is a bit daunting as far as remembering who is who. The comedy between Stanwyck, Romero and Russell on the boat (as the little boy becomes Romero's rival for Stanwyck's attention) is lighthearted and fun. The result is a film with a better screenplay than normal for films of this nature and a delightful discovery.