A prima vista

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.

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.

Between the tear-jerking excesses of two of the Christmas season's biggest movies, Patch Adams and Stepmom,you'd think that even the staunchest fans of those caring-and-sharing medical weepers would have reached their limit. But here comes At First Sight,which is not quite so life-and- death, but it's just as determined, in its modest way, to milk those tear ducts dry. In this case, though, the scientific context of the movie -- about a blind man who regains his sight with unexpected repercussions -- makes for a subject considerably more interesting than the romantic drama to which it is attached.

At First Sight is based on the writings of neurologist Oliver Sacks (the movie Awakenings was adapted from his work as well). It tells the true story of a 50-year- old blind man named Virgil who works as a YMCA masseur. On the eve of his wedding, he has cataracts removed, which allows him to see for the first time in 40 years. The experience, however, turns out to be more painful than joyful. As Sacks notes, the questions raised are profound, and have interested philosophers from John Locke to George Berkeley. Is sight a learned activity? What is the relationship between a world understood through touch and one understood through sight? The basic facts have been moulded into a trite romance that could easily fit between a pair of Harlequin covers. Unfortunately, the film glosses over the science and deliberately avoids some of the odder aspects of the original case. Virgil, on gaining his sight, also managed to pack on about 50 pounds; stress made him eat. Somehow, though, you don't expect a star of Val Kilmer's magnitude to take the Raging Bull route to character authenticity through poundage.

Instead, what we have is a story of a woman who discovers the perfect man, almost loses him, and then regains him. Mira Sorvino plays Amy Benic, a hot-shot New York architect, who heads off for a spa weekend in a charming New England village. Before she knows it, a hunky masseur has her calf muscles in his hands and has her melting like warm butter under his probing fingers. Entranced, she returns for further rubdowns until one day she approaches Mr. Magic Fingers as he's getting on a bus and discovers -- omigod! -- he's blind.

After a brief Internet search, Amy discovers that Virgil doesn't necessarily have to be blind, and she lands a top surgeon (Bruce Davison) to cure the problem. It turns out that Virgil is a bit reluctant, and his sister Jennie (Kelly McGillis) is downright hostile to the idea of improving her brother's lot. Love wins, though, and Virgil agrees to undergo the treatment. Soon, Virgil and Amy are sharing her New York apartment. But Virgil, who has accommodated himself quite well as a blind man, is now a very inadequate sighted man, who can't read or write or interpret even the most basic social signals. He's miserable trying to learn how to see again, and the relationship goes into a tailspin.

Much of the dialogue, during these dreary lovers' quarrels, focuses on blindness in love and living with one's blind spots and limitations (she has a too-symbolic chunk of unfinished sculpture she started in college). Nathan Lane pops up in the role of a wise and funny counsellor, the sort of part that usually goes to Robin Williams. "Isn't seeing wonderful," he says to Virgil, when he takes him to a strip club. "Seeing sucks," says a disconsolate Virgil. Roll over, George Berkeley, and tell John Locke the news.

Director Irwin Winkler (Night and the City)is rarely better than pedestrian in handling this story. At worst, the dramatic elements are plain clumsy.

The most interesting moments in At First Sight have nothing to do with the love story, but rise instead from Virgil's struggles with the social rules of seeing. What do facial expressions mean? How do we learn to look away from the homeless? There are a few moments that try to capture Virgil's viewpoint -- lights, glare, moving shapes -- that are as useful as anything the movie has to say about the conventions of seeing. Given the rich visual opportunities of such a topic, it seems a great waste the movie wasn't directed by someone with a more astute eye. Benjamin Miller, Filmbay Editor.

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.

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.