Auf den ersten Blick

Val Kilmer sadly left us on April 1. I have been trying to re-visit his filmography of movies I missed. I had been wanting to see this one for years since he was diagnosed with throat cancer but never got around to it. This was the perfect time to give this a stream.

Movies like this are hard to write an opinion on. There are so many good things in this movie but there are also a couple big flaws and ultimately the bad outweighs the good to the point I can only marginally not recommend this.

PROS: Kilmer is absolutely terrific. Watching him here I felt I was genuinely in the presence of a blind person. It's no secret he was a phenomenal actor and his performance here tremendously elevates this movie. He's wonderful.

Mira Sorvino whose work I have only seen a little bit of is also very good and compliments Kilmer well. Their chemistry is very natural and does genuinely work. She was cast very well in this.

Killer's Top Gun co-star Kelly McGillis is also very good and effective as Kilmer's protective older sister and caretaker. She doesn't have any false notes and plays her role with much sincerity and credibility.

It's great to see Bruce Davison who was the lead in the 1971 movie Willard. Haven't seen him in much else so liked that he was cast in a supporting role here.

The ending is not as predictable as you might expect which helps.

Great soundtrack.

CONS: This movie goes on way, way too long. There is no need for it to be 2 hours and 8 minutes. This movie should not have been any longer than 110 minutes max. The extra scenes are not necessary and you wish they would just get on with it in lots of parts already.

Nathan Lane is a standout as a visual therapist but he has very little to do and more scenes of his character and less sexy scenes between Kilmer and Sorvino would have made this a much better movie. Lane's got some great dialogue and really steals his scenes but his performance sadly is merely a cameo. I wish his role were extended.

The subplot with Kilmer and McGillis' father is not given enough attention and a little more closure on their relationship would have made a better film. It could have been done well and effectively with tight editing.

Some scenes near the end seem dramatically forced and seem insincere and repetitive. This is not Kilmer or Sorvino's fault this is the screenwriting and direction though Irwin Winkler who directed was a producer of the original Rocky so he obviously had some talent and overall does good here but kinda drops the ball on some of those scenes.

The underrated Steven Weber is wasted as Sorvino's ex-husband and current employer. He was most famous for starring in the TV series Wings in the 90's but is honestly a very good actor. Like Lane he's good but given so little to do you wonder why another lesser-known actor wasn't cast or why do we really even need his character to begin with. His character doesn't really push the story along and is more of a small distraction.

I don't think anyone was trying to make an Oscar winner here but this could have been a very good movie with more tightening and improvement on some of the other flaws aforementioned.

Die-hard Kilmer fans or people who may just be interested in the story won't be totally wasting their time watching this but this movie is still a missed opportunity on the whole for something that could have been very, very good.

As it stands there's a lot to admire to be sure but there are also flaws that don't balance out enough with the goods for this to be successful on the whole.

Kilmer career highlights are of course Top Gun, The Doors, Tombstone and Thunderheart. I'm sure I have forgotten some but unfortunately despite some very good things this just isn't in the same class with those other movies.

You could do a lot worse with 2 hours and 8 minutes than watching this movie but in context of Kilmer's overall excellent work this just doesn't hit the bulls-eye even though there were more than enough ingredients there for it to do so.

That's why I give 7 out of 10 some great stuff to be sure but not enough to hit a true home run.

The only way I can really describe At First Sight is that it is a nice film. A feel good movie, something like that, and a very beauifully shot feel good movie. The cinematography is excellent, the story on the other hand could have used some tightening. Kilmer and Sorvino kind of walk through this film on cruise control, I really enjoyed Nathan Lane's small role as a vision therapist. This is a nice movie to watch on a rainy day or with someone you love.

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.

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.

When I saw the average rating of 5. something, on this site, I thought oh well maybe I'll watch it anyway since I like Mira Sorvino and it was based on a real man's story. Also it was free on a channel I have cause it was older:), but I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Not an Oscar winner or anything but very well done story about a man blind since a young child, who went through some unpleasant treatments to help him regain his sight that didn't work. Now an adult, very used to being blind, he meets a young woman whom he likes, and she likes him too. She hears about a new surgery to help him regain his vision and wants him to try it, but his sister, who has been there for him his whole life helping him survive the sighted world, objects. His father left the family early on, and hasn't been in contact with him at all! He has to adjust his life drastically, and the movie shows all the pitfalls of suddenly seeing things and not always knowing what to do.It was pretty well acted, I thought, and made me want to find out more about the real man. All in all, well worth watching.