A primera vista

Val Kilmer sadly left us on April 1. I have been trying to re-visit his filmography of movies I missed. I had been wanting to see this one for years since he was diagnosed with throat cancer but never got around to it. This was the perfect time to give this a stream.

Movies like this are hard to write an opinion on. There are so many good things in this movie but there are also a couple big flaws and ultimately the bad outweighs the good to the point I can only marginally not recommend this.

PROS: Kilmer is absolutely terrific. Watching him here I felt I was genuinely in the presence of a blind person. It's no secret he was a phenomenal actor and his performance here tremendously elevates this movie. He's wonderful.

Mira Sorvino whose work I have only seen a little bit of is also very good and compliments Kilmer well. Their chemistry is very natural and does genuinely work. She was cast very well in this.

Killer's Top Gun co-star Kelly McGillis is also very good and effective as Kilmer's protective older sister and caretaker. She doesn't have any false notes and plays her role with much sincerity and credibility.

It's great to see Bruce Davison who was the lead in the 1971 movie Willard. Haven't seen him in much else so liked that he was cast in a supporting role here.

The ending is not as predictable as you might expect which helps.

Great soundtrack.

CONS: This movie goes on way, way too long. There is no need for it to be 2 hours and 8 minutes. This movie should not have been any longer than 110 minutes max. The extra scenes are not necessary and you wish they would just get on with it in lots of parts already.

Nathan Lane is a standout as a visual therapist but he has very little to do and more scenes of his character and less sexy scenes between Kilmer and Sorvino would have made this a much better movie. Lane's got some great dialogue and really steals his scenes but his performance sadly is merely a cameo. I wish his role were extended.

The subplot with Kilmer and McGillis' father is not given enough attention and a little more closure on their relationship would have made a better film. It could have been done well and effectively with tight editing.

Some scenes near the end seem dramatically forced and seem insincere and repetitive. This is not Kilmer or Sorvino's fault this is the screenwriting and direction though Irwin Winkler who directed was a producer of the original Rocky so he obviously had some talent and overall does good here but kinda drops the ball on some of those scenes.

The underrated Steven Weber is wasted as Sorvino's ex-husband and current employer. He was most famous for starring in the TV series Wings in the 90's but is honestly a very good actor. Like Lane he's good but given so little to do you wonder why another lesser-known actor wasn't cast or why do we really even need his character to begin with. His character doesn't really push the story along and is more of a small distraction.

I don't think anyone was trying to make an Oscar winner here but this could have been a very good movie with more tightening and improvement on some of the other flaws aforementioned.

Die-hard Kilmer fans or people who may just be interested in the story won't be totally wasting their time watching this but this movie is still a missed opportunity on the whole for something that could have been very, very good.

As it stands there's a lot to admire to be sure but there are also flaws that don't balance out enough with the goods for this to be successful on the whole.

Kilmer career highlights are of course Top Gun, The Doors, Tombstone and Thunderheart. I'm sure I have forgotten some but unfortunately despite some very good things this just isn't in the same class with those other movies.

You could do a lot worse with 2 hours and 8 minutes than watching this movie but in context of Kilmer's overall excellent work this just doesn't hit the bulls-eye even though there were more than enough ingredients there for it to do so.

That's why I give 7 out of 10 some great stuff to be sure but not enough to hit a true home run.

I went into the theater expecting the normal amount of mushiness one can assume will be present in a love story. However, I was pleasantly surprised. At First Sight contains little sappiness, or other such material that only takes up time. Instead, the film was an honest look at one man's attempt to adjust to the "sight" world. At First Sight offered a look into the struggles Virgil Adamson faced after having sight for the first since he was 1. The film also outlined the pain of his loved ones, as they tried to help him adjust to a new environment, while facing pain and confusion themselves.

At First Sight is an emotional roller coaster. The film jumps around from rejoicing, sadness, frustration, confusion, and happiness. Yet because these are very real emotions for the characters, the audience sympathizes. The film uses these emotions artfully, without appearing to jam them down the audience's throat.

As any good movie will, At First Sight opens the audience's eyes to the people who live through these experiences. Everyday things, like what a bird is, and what an expression means at a given moment, must be explained Virgil. The lessons Virgil must learn and the way he deals with them are both amusing and sad.

This movie challenges traditional beliefs by stating that a "handicap" is a barrier. Often the real problem is trying to fix it.

If you're in the market for an excellent movie, with a solid cast, and good effects, see At First Sight.

I saw this film on AMC and part way through it, I felt as if I had seen it before. Then I realized I was thinking of the 1990 Penny Marshall film "Awakenings," starring Robin Williams and Robert De Niro.

"At First Sight" is a true story about a blind man who temporarily regains his sight, then goes blind again. "Awakenings" was about a comatose man who woke up temporarily, then slid back into a comatose.

Oh, and by the way, they're both written by the same guy.

For what it's worth, "Love At First Sight" is actually a pretty likable and overall watchable film. It's not great or anything unpredictable (how convenient - the female love interest) but Kilmer gives a remarkable performance (all considered) and there are a few moments in hte film that are a BIT out of the ordinary.

Worth watching, but don't go out of your way or anything.

A very interesting subject, but not done as well as I'd hoped. I thought the beginning of the movie was quite well done, but then it seemed to suddenly jump. I felt like it skipped a step. All of a sudden Sorvino and Kilmer's characters are in love. The movie plodded along a bit more, and I felt like we'd NEVER see him have the operation to get his sight.

During the operation there are boring scenes, which go on much too long between Sorvino and the sister. AFTER the operation, it begins to get interesting again.

BUT, BUT, BUT... they don't spend enough time on the interesting stuff. The movie skims over everything. The romance is going stale, he's learning to see, and there's that absurd father story-line, but none of the story-lines are fully developed. And the ending was the slowest part of the movie.

Peeve - Why did he get a new dog, and leave behind his beautiful yellow lab????

Quite disappointing.

I've been a nurse for 20 years, and have been around many patients who must contend daily with what "normal" people would consider to be adversities and handicaps. I've always looked upon them with (1) great admiration for their personal strength and determination, and (2) a pervading sense of sorrow and an aching heart, for their "misfortune" in having been denied the opportunity to interact in the world with the benefit of an intact, healthy body.

This movie really struck an emotional chord with me, and made me realize how my feelings for these `unfortunates' could be construed as condescending and insensitive. I've often wished that I had the power to "heal" the handicapped, or to make them whole and "normal." The idea that they could feel totally satisfied, complete, and happy, despite their limitations -- and that it is presumptuous of us to think otherwise -- was intelligently brought to light in this screenplay.

This film is based upon a true story of a man who had come to terms with his blindness, and who, instead of wallowing in bitterness and self-pity, had learned to use his remaining senses of hearing, touch, smell, and taste -- along with a delightful sense of humor -- to become a happy, positive, and resourceful human being, with a keen sensitivity toward -- and appreciation of -- the world and the people around him. This is very much like handicapped patients I have cared for through the years, who left me in wonder at their strikingly positive attitudes and warmth toward humanity, despite the obstacles they face on a daily basis.

One of the reasons that I enjoy Val Kilmer's performances so much, is that he has the uncanny ability to capture the subtlest nuances of the characters he is portraying, whether it's Virgil, Doc Holliday, Jim Morrison, etc., and then is willing to bare his soul to bring the role to fruition for public enjoyment/critique. It's a risky, daring, thing to do -- and I applaud him for his courage! I appreciate the effort he makes to hone his performances by extensively researching the people and situations he is contracted to portray, instead of just showing up on the set, spewing his lines, picking up the paycheck, and moving on. His portrayal of a blind man was COMPLETELY believable, and I forgot for two hours that he was a sighted actor playing a part. One reviewer criticized him for smiling too much when his character interacted with people. I have to ask whether that person has ever watched Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles or Jose Feliciano, while they are interacting in social situations. Kilmer nailed this part, and beautifully expressed the gamut of emotions experienced by Virgil in the transformations that took place in his life.

Other issues that have been mentioned by reviewers: (1) -- A supposed `lack of chemistry' between Kilmer and Sorvino – I have to wonder if we were watching the same film! (2) -- Yes -- as a warning to households with young children -- there is nudity, but their intimate scenes were enacted beautifully, with sensitivity and tenderness; there was nothing raunchy or sensationalistic about them. However, some might take offense at the scene in the strip club – it wasn't essential to the plot development, and could have been omitted. (3) -- The only `bad language' in the film were rare, scattered expletives, which conveyed the understandable frustration of the main character when he was confronted with overwhelming emotions and tribulations, and (4) – the scene of confrontation between Virgil and his father, which some people thought unnecessary, but which I felt was very appropriate, since their relationship and the father's abandonment of the family had been such traumatic, devastating events in Virgil's life.

This film is an emotional roller-coaster ride, but WELL worth the trip – LOVED it! :o)

P.S. – If you haven't seen Kilmer as Doc Holliday in `Tombstone,' RUN, don't walk, to your nearest video store, and grab the Vista Series DVD – it's absolutely one of the best performances EVER recorded on film! The Academy must have slept through 1993!!!!