One of my all time favorites.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

At First Sight (1999): Dir: Irvin Winkler / Cast: Val Kilmer, Mira Sorvino, Kelly McGillis, Steven Weber, Bruce Davison: Romantic drivel about both the physical blindness and the unawareness of love. Val Kilmer plays Virgil who has been blind since age three and regrets the fact that his father left him at age eleven. He seems to get around and has a passion for skating on a nearby pond. Mira Sorvino plays an architect named Amy who strolls into town establishes a friendship with him. She tells him of an eye surgery back home that may help him. This leads to a depressing conclusion in an attempt to get a tear from viewers who should realize that the screenwriter is cheating them. Director Irvin Winkler is at best when exploring Virgil's senses as when he listens to the rain. His previous film, The Net dealt with sense also but from a different perspective. Kilmer is at the mercy of romantic clichés when more about his dealings with his condition would have been more interesting. Sorvino labours under cardboard basically acting as the love interest. Kelly McGillis is wasted as Virgil's concern sister. Then there is Bruce Davison as a doctor out to give Kilmer sight so that he can see what a piece of junk he has been cast in. Is this film taking the whole blind condition and surgical possibilities seriously? Perhaps, but it is more likely that it is dull to the senses when factoring its giddy delivery. Score: 3 / 10

first of all, the paramount rule of eye surgery is YOU DO ONE EYE AT A TIME AND SEE HOW IT WORKS OUT. if the surgery is successful you do the other eye if not then need to seriously reconsider waiting until medical technology gives you another crack at it on the other eye.you don't do experimental surgery on BOTH eyes in the same operation.also, no freakin way a responsible medical practitioner would allow glaring camera lights in the room for a patient who's going to see for the first time in 25 years!!! DIM THE LIGHTS PEOPLE !!! I wont elaborate on the other absurdities but for me there were just too many.the good news is the performances were done well, this is a nice 'feel good' film with a so-so happy ending 'based on' a true story FWIW.Mira Sorvino has those classic Italian features and is very very smart lady fluent in 3 languages. maybe 4. very smart.

Although it is a true story -that's what the final lines tell us ,revealing us what would become of the two characters- the movie resembles a Douglas Sirk melodrama.Of course ,it has not the strength of the great director's magnificent weepies ,but it is ,all in all ,a good melodrama .Mia Sorvino and Val Kilmer give charming performances but the stand-out is for me Kelly McGillis who made the best of another of these supporting parts she's too often relegated to.She portrays a generous sister who sacrificed her life to her blind brother.When he returns to his native town,the reunion with her is probably the best moment of the film.The story has also some Capra accents,notably the scene with the homeless man on the sidewalk.

I have conflicting feelings about different elements of this movie.Great premise. It's uniqueness was what kept me "in the film." -- Val Kilmer: A workmanlike effort to look and act the part, both as a blind man and as recently-sighted person. Forced storyline doesn't give him much time to develop believable reactions to plot elements. -- Mira Sorvino: As beautiful and likable as ever. Nice subtlety to her expressions and inflections helps us suspend our disbelief now and again during the film. -- Supporting cast: Kelly McGillis chews the scenery. Nathan Lane always does a good job, but isn't on screen much. Steven Weber is a bit wooden (again, mostly the script's fault) but manages to be a suitably smarmy ex-husband. -- Camera-work: Most of the scenes are visually rather pretty. Given the challenges of showing the POV of a disoriented, newly-sighted person, not a bad effort -- Plot: Sloppy, with forced emotions, mismatched scenes, unnecessary subplots, and loose ends. -- Dialogue: Horribly contrived and stilted. Lots of unrealistic monologuing. -- Storyline: prior to his operation, most of the plot elements seem lifted from old Longstreet episodes. The small town is completely cardboard. In New York after operation, things are less cliché, more inventive, but still a struggle.OVERALL AVERAGE: 5. Not great. May be worth seeing because of the unique premise, but if you skip it, you're not missing much.