SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

It is a performances centric movie

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

I like movies about the meaning of life. Yes, they lack action, no special effects, no slick plots... just down-to-earth conversations.It's a bit odd that Finn (David Strathairn) romps about town with encyclopedias in his little red wagon, but that's the point. The movie is slow for a reason. The images drive this movie as much as the characters. Each visual is as deep as the dialog.The way Finn stops and wonders, the expressions on his face, his pauses in dialog... . The character of Finn would be a hard one to portray, but Strathairn provides a wonderful performance. Hats off to whoever cast him for the part.

Imagine that a high-school drama teacher assigns each of his class members to write a script. Rules? A small town; people with various anxieties.Do whatever you like.Then, bring the cast together to exchange scripts (no editing needed); then go. So you act out someone else's script and then periodically the drama teacher points to 2 of you and says "scene" - they come together and ad lib.The Sensation of Sight isn't close to this good. It's the worst kind of semi-experimental semi-exploratory, uh, drama.It's unwatchable.Amazing though because the protagonist and others in the cast are decent actors.

If titles are useful indicators of what a film has in store, then The Sensation of Sight must be a very profound 134 minutes. Trouble is, first time director and writer Aaron Wiederspahn's ambitions heavily outweigh his ability to actually make a profound film. As is usually the case, wanting to be profound and actually being profound is an ocean apart and, unfortunately, TSOS is no exception.TSOS's multiple characters all wear their angst on their sleeves and each of them stumbles through life burdened by their past, tortured in the present and bouncing off each other for the sole purpose of pulling out little bits of profundity from one another. This not so subtle device is used in excess as a means to propel the story and illuminate each enigmatic character's back story one tidbit at a time. But little of TSOS's overt melodrama feels sincere, instead it's authorial voice screams from rooftops at how deep and emotionally powerful the writer's words are. The stabs at deeper meaning are telegraphed through a series of overwrought contrivances, making it very difficult to identify with characters who do unnatural things, spew writerly dialogue and awkwardly interact with one another for the sole purpose of forwarding narrative. In many ways, TSOS is reminiscent of Paul Haggis' Crash, another heavily contrived film that will stop at nothing to prove to you how profound it is. While Crash barely manages to pull off the impossible, TSOS falls short.Despite it's weaknesses, TSOS does possess a quiet charm, a quality that comes through in it's slow pacing, attention to minutiae and simple yet poetic photography. It also possesses an effectively minimal soundtrack punctuated with occasional injections of indie rock gems. Nevertheless, Wiederspahn's inexperience as a filmmaker seeps into TSOS and it never manages to escape the suffocating voice of its author. There's a good chance Wiederspahn has the tools and the sensitivity to mature into a uniquely talented and individual filmmaker, but unless you've got 2 plus hours to dispense on potential, you might be better off waiting for his next film.

A very deft and competent work given the experience and budget of the production team. The script didn't seem all that easy to work with, but a fine group of actors seemed to find it's pitch and pace. Coupled with a sweet little soundtrack, it triggered a few Hal Hartley flashbacks. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The photography really was extraordinary. A very complete palette was found in some fairly mundane locations creating an effect that was at times both rich and bleak simultaneously, somewhat like a Russell Banks short story. Not that there's anything wrong with that either. Frankly there's not much wrong with this film at all and it should stand up well when viewed a few times.