A primera vista

I loved this movie. I adored it; I felt it was one of the more genuinely touching and real love stories that I had seen in a long, long time and even now, more than twenty-four hours since I saw it for the first, and I promise you, *not* last time, I am still haunted by its emotional power and how it drew me in with its passion. Inspired by a true story and starring a very real actor and a very real actress, "At First Sight" touched my heartstrings and yanked on them all the way through. It also contained a very humanistic touch apart from its romantic elements, one that I think everybody can appreciate in one way or another.

As the movie opens, Amy Benic (Mira Sorvino) an overworked architect is essentially booted out of her office and sent to the winter land countryside resort on a vacation by her co-workers. During her stay there, she befriends a blind therapist (Val Kilmer) with whom she begins a slowly-developing romantic bond. Despite his condition, they grow closer to each other and become passionately devoted, up to and past a surgery that they hope can restore his eyesight.

"At First Sight" is a fictionalized adaptation of Shirl and Barbara Jennings, a couple who passionately loved each other even though the former was completely blind. Their story was documented by Dr. Oliver Sacks. Adapted from his account by Steve Levitt and directed by Irwin Winkler, the movie becomes a powerfully dramatic love story that contains so much of that real-life passion from the people that inspired it.

It is easy to criticize "At First Sight" for being too conventional, too derivative of other Hollywood love stories. But I don't think this picture falls under those categories and those type of films, such as "Hope Floats." First of all, sometimes it's not about plot twists or breaking the mold. Sometimes, a movie can strike with just as much power (or more, as in this case) simply by utilizing those conventions and building upon them in a way that is fresh. And they do that here. The two central characters are very well-written, characterized as thinking, caring human beings who love and hunger for each other. A commendable move on the filmmakers' part was the casting. Instead of placing the typical romantic leads, who are more body than personality, they cast two very real performances. Gifted and good-looking as they are, Mr. Kilmer and Ms Sorvino, I've always felt, were very real. They aren't merely putting on a convincing act, they transition something very real into their performances and you can sense that. And as a defining example, I want to cite the scene in here that I usually gripe about: the sex scene. Whereas with most erotic scenes in movies, I tend to get the feeling that my time is being wasted, or that the director is losing faith in his own picture and using a cheap gimmick to stimulate my interest, I did not feel that here. There is a brief and very visceral erotic moment between Mr. Kilmer and Ms Sorvino - and I know people are going to start laughing at this point - and I did not get a negative reaction because this scene was not lustful. I wasn't thinking about the sex, I wasn't even thinking about Ms Sorvino's body. I was thinking about the passion and the love that was emanating from this scene. Here comes the one that I'm sure will get the biggest laugh yet.

I was not turned on; I was moved.

That's the core of what I loved this movie. Unlike so many of those contrived excuses of love stories that I see in so many movies, I *believed* in the love between these two characters. I was convinced they were two people who adored each other. I believed in their love, I cared for their love, I feared for their love. But what also makes the movie so good is the way the subject matter of blindness is treated. I imagine that for some, seeing or merely knowing about the subject matter of this movie can be a comforting reminder that lack of eyesight is not lack of humanity. For me, it was a reminder of just how thankful I am to not only have my eyesight, but my health. These two very authentic emotional elements stirred a great passion in me as I watched the film and kept me in play clear to the end.

Can I criticize anything in the movie? Well, yes, two short moments. One was a super-fast zoom upon Val Kilmer's eyes accompanied by a whooshing sound effect. The other was a jump cut montage of Ms Sorvino imitating emotions. These two scenes were a little out of place and seemed to be from other movies. But it's a two hour and nine minute movie and these two bits add up to, what, less than a minute? You do the math.

"At First Sight" is a wonderful movie with a strong emotional chord. Mr. Kilmer and Ms Sorvino are absolutely wonderful, as are the underrated Kelly McGillis as the jealous, troubled sister, Bruce Davison as the optimistic surgeon, Nathan Lane as the unorthodox and deliberately comical vision therapist, and Steven Weber as the lascivious fellow architect. It's an incredibly touching love story that I'm telling you, I cannot be satisfied with after just a first sight. I'm going to need at least two more before I could possibly even come close to being too familiar with this genuine little jewel of a motion picture.

At First Sight was a great movie. It touched me in so many ways,that I now have to go out and buy it. Val Kilmer was very insightful as a blind man,it was as though he was truly blind and that it didn't seem unrealistic and he's one of today's top notch actors.And Mira Sorvino she is good in all her movie roles.I mean seeing her in the role of Amy made my wife and I enjoy this movie all the better. I really felt for the couple and hoped every thing would work out for them when Val was able to see,but with all great movies everything isn't always that way.

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!!!!

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.