Waste of time

This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

5.7 ! I can't believe how underrated this movie is. This is genuine,powerful drama. The first segment highlights the courtship of Amy and Virgil. It went well and stomped somewhat familiar ground and we thought it would pace the movie into expected and nice conclusion. The middle segment dealt with the operation and how Virgil had to retrain his brain to new-found vision as adult. ***SPOILER*** then the last segment makes an unexpected,tragic and cruel turn. If it was gut- wrenching to watch imagine how the real life "Virgil" for whom this true story was based on must have felt. Then the epilogue and closing remarks about the real "Amy" and "Virgil". This is powerful stuff. Val Klimer I thought was as action kick-butt guy only - was I wrong! He intelligently plays the first blind Virgil who had reconciled himself, then as the sighted Virgil who had to relearn everything as an adult, and lastly the at-peace Virgil again when he went blind again. In between sighted and then blindness he saw his older sister for first time, commented how beautiful she was and how she had given up life to take care of him, having both been abandoned by their runaway dad. His relationship with Amy is more complicated. He needs her but wants to have some Independence, while Amy is all loving and supportive. To provide some irony Amy had brief moment close to submitting to Duncan, the scheming ex-husband who wants them back together again. But it was too brief a moment and Amy affirmed her love to Virgil by abruptly breaking away from Duncam. We see these characters in real life. They are around us. They are us. Just like having doubts about Val Klimer, I had initial doubt about Mira Sorvino who too often associates with light comedy. Here She was caring and devoted to Virgil and shows she never lost sight of who she is. Kelly McGillis' protective, self- sacrificing big sister was believable. "I spent my whole life looking down, checking for pot holes so Virgil wouldn't fall in," she said. The medical staff was convincing. Ken Howard's brief but important appearance delivered the counterpoint. The script was intelligently written and many details about how the blinds adjust to their environment display careful research. This is the movie if you are in the mood for a well-acted and powerful drama.

Tightly-wound New York architect Mira Sorvino (as Amy Benic) gets a rubdown from hunky blind masseur Val Kilmer (as Virgil Adamson), and the two fall in love (you guessed it) "At First Sight". One can see this coming as Mr. Kilmer's strong hands begin to caress Ms. Sorvino's body. This is very much how the entire film plays out. Everything is obvious. The main plot development is when Kilmer undergoes treatment to recover his sight, thanks to conveniently placed doctor Bruce Davidson (as Charles Aaron). Kilmer has some good scenes after the operation, sister Kelly McGillis (as Jennie) makes the most of her supporting role, ex-husband Steven Weber (as Duncan Allanbrook) makes you want to see him win, and vision therapist Nathan Lane (as Phil Webster) gets in a few good lines. Director Irwin Winkler's most valuable player is clearly cinematographer John Seale.***** At First Sight (1/12/99) Irwin Winkler ~ Val Kilmer, Mira Sorvino, Kelly McGillis, Nathan Lane

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.

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.