filmbay
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.
ccthemovieman-1
For some reason, perhaps a review I read prior to watching this, I thought this might be an "Awakenings"-type story, so I was enthused about watching it. Well, it's not a tenth as good as "Awakenings" and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as that fine film. If you read someone comparing the two films, don't believe it. One was intelligent and fascinating; one was stupid and boring.This is just awful. It's about a blind man who temporarily regains his sight, and then loses it again. That sounds interesting but the film, in a nutshell, turned out to be nothing but a long, soap opera with an extremely irritating female lead: Mia Sorvino, as "Amy Benic." Val Kilmer's character, "Virg Anderson," might have lost his sight but Sorvino obviously had lost her brains. What a bimbo! It doesn't help she blurts out OMG every third sentence, which makes her sound even more stupid. Kilmer, meanwhile, should stick with crime movies or westerns. He's very good in those kind of films. He stinks at melodrama. This movie did not need to go over two hours, either.In the end, it's just not a memorable story and it should have been, as "Awakenings" certainly wound up.
john shephard
Here in Crete Greece there are many films shown during the night on TV so my wife and I use the users comments to decide which films to record to watch at a decent hour. Although this film only got a rating of 5.6 which we feel is the bottom end of a film worth watching the plot outline sounded interesting so we gave it a go.Well I think that 5.6 is a bit too good a rating. 4.5 is better.The basic story about a man who was blind from the age of three regaining his sight is fine. However about 80 minutes would have been sufficient not the 128 minutes forced on to us. It was dragged out for the sake of it with lots of valueless scenes included. Our DVD recorder automatically put markers every six minutes on a recording and after about 80 minutes we started zapping forward 6 minutes and watching for 30 – 40 seconds to keep up to date with the plot.Val Kilmer's portrayal of a blind man was for him to smile incessantly throughout every scene, he seemed more creepy than anything.When they enter the old abandoned building which Kilmer had not known existed before then, he was very confident for a blind man entering a new space. He steps gingerly forward without his stick in to what? Could have been an old uncover well and that would have been the end of him and the film. But luckily for him it was just good solid floor boards.The father serves no purpose for being in this movie.The little kid next door pops up for no good reason and gets pretty annoying.It was OK to watch but perhaps I should have baked some bread it would have been better use of my time.
jldmp1
How ordinary this turned out to be...Here was an enormous opportunity to give us an exposition on the discovery of sight - what else are movies for? But no...this is reduced to the lowest common denominator of melodrama.This really could have been something in the hands of, say, a DePalma - someone who understands that perspective comes first...Winkler sticks to flat notions of fish out of water jokes transmogrifying into occasions to grab the tissues.But then, how can we expect adventure when these things are built around star appeal? Pretty-boy Kilmer acts with his upper teeth; Sorvino is just embarrassingly bad, not even glamorous.
