1. Is it as grand? Nah, but these days, what is? Some of it is my age, certainly (as another poster has said). Another is that it's so overhyped. The utter ridiculousness of the winner of the game determining the World Series home-field advantage still blows my mind. This is supposed to be a fun diversion, a chance for baseball to exhibit its best and brightest. It's not supposed to count. I guess there's no room for fun anymore.
Honestly, though, I've never found All-Star style games to be all that enthralling, in any sport. Sure, sports are all about talent and such, but beyond that they're also about team chemistry. The all-star games are often not crisply played because these guys aren't used to playing together.
Sure, with so much talent on the field you're bound to have a good play or two, a real example of hustle and some great pitching. But none, even in the best of times, that I've found particularly memorable.
Does the game resonate the way it did in the 50s and 60s? Well, in the broadest sense, no I don't think it does. In a day of 24 hour news and sports coverage, it's early July and some folks are already talking about playoff contenders and who's going to have a fire sale in the second half. The grind of summer is on, and players are more concerned with avoiding injuries than putting on a show for a game that theoretically doesn't count.
On a practical standpoint, it "resonates" or counts more now, because of the whole home field advantage thing in the World Series. Like I said, I just don't agree with the line of reasoning that it should matter beyond an exhibition.
As to other sports -- baseball's All-Star game is still the granddaddy. No other can compare, mostly because of the nature of the sport. From a popularity standpoint, baseball's all-star game will always win, too. It's a matter of timing. There's not a whole lot of competition in the sports/entertainment field in the second week of July.