User reviews

I loved this movie. I adored it; I felt it was one of the more genuinely touching and real love stories that I had seen in a long, long time and even now, more than twenty-four hours since I saw it for the first, and I promise you, *not* last time, I am still haunted by its emotional power and how it drew me in with its passion. Inspired by a true story and starring a very real actor and a very real actress, "At First Sight" touched my heartstrings and yanked on them all the way through. It also contained a very humanistic touch apart from its romantic elements, one that I think everybody can appreciate in one way or another.

As the movie opens, Amy Benic (Mira Sorvino) an overworked architect is essentially booted out of her office and sent to the winter land countryside resort on a vacation by her co-workers. During her stay there, she befriends a blind therapist (Val Kilmer) with whom she begins a slowly-developing romantic bond. Despite his condition, they grow closer to each other and become passionately devoted, up to and past a surgery that they hope can restore his eyesight.

"At First Sight" is a fictionalized adaptation of Shirl and Barbara Jennings, a couple who passionately loved each other even though the former was completely blind. Their story was documented by Dr. Oliver Sacks. Adapted from his account by Steve Levitt and directed by Irwin Winkler, the movie becomes a powerfully dramatic love story that contains so much of that real-life passion from the people that inspired it.

It is easy to criticize "At First Sight" for being too conventional, too derivative of other Hollywood love stories. But I don't think this picture falls under those categories and those type of films, such as "Hope Floats." First of all, sometimes it's not about plot twists or breaking the mold. Sometimes, a movie can strike with just as much power (or more, as in this case) simply by utilizing those conventions and building upon them in a way that is fresh. And they do that here. The two central characters are very well-written, characterized as thinking, caring human beings who love and hunger for each other. A commendable move on the filmmakers' part was the casting. Instead of placing the typical romantic leads, who are more body than personality, they cast two very real performances. Gifted and good-looking as they are, Mr. Kilmer and Ms Sorvino, I've always felt, were very real. They aren't merely putting on a convincing act, they transition something very real into their performances and you can sense that. And as a defining example, I want to cite the scene in here that I usually gripe about: the sex scene. Whereas with most erotic scenes in movies, I tend to get the feeling that my time is being wasted, or that the director is losing faith in his own picture and using a cheap gimmick to stimulate my interest, I did not feel that here. There is a brief and very visceral erotic moment between Mr. Kilmer and Ms Sorvino - and I know people are going to start laughing at this point - and I did not get a negative reaction because this scene was not lustful. I wasn't thinking about the sex, I wasn't even thinking about Ms Sorvino's body. I was thinking about the passion and the love that was emanating from this scene. Here comes the one that I'm sure will get the biggest laugh yet.

I was not turned on; I was moved.

That's the core of what I loved this movie. Unlike so many of those contrived excuses of love stories that I see in so many movies, I *believed* in the love between these two characters. I was convinced they were two people who adored each other. I believed in their love, I cared for their love, I feared for their love. But what also makes the movie so good is the way the subject matter of blindness is treated. I imagine that for some, seeing or merely knowing about the subject matter of this movie can be a comforting reminder that lack of eyesight is not lack of humanity. For me, it was a reminder of just how thankful I am to not only have my eyesight, but my health. These two very authentic emotional elements stirred a great passion in me as I watched the film and kept me in play clear to the end.

Can I criticize anything in the movie? Well, yes, two short moments. One was a super-fast zoom upon Val Kilmer's eyes accompanied by a whooshing sound effect. The other was a jump cut montage of Ms Sorvino imitating emotions. These two scenes were a little out of place and seemed to be from other movies. But it's a two hour and nine minute movie and these two bits add up to, what, less than a minute? You do the math.

"At First Sight" is a wonderful movie with a strong emotional chord. Mr. Kilmer and Ms Sorvino are absolutely wonderful, as are the underrated Kelly McGillis as the jealous, troubled sister, Bruce Davison as the optimistic surgeon, Nathan Lane as the unorthodox and deliberately comical vision therapist, and Steven Weber as the lascivious fellow architect. It's an incredibly touching love story that I'm telling you, I cannot be satisfied with after just a first sight. I'm going to need at least two more before I could possibly even come close to being too familiar with this genuine little jewel of a motion picture.

I went into the theater expecting the normal amount of mushiness one can assume will be present in a love story. However, I was pleasantly surprised. At First Sight contains little sappiness, or other such material that only takes up time. Instead, the film was an honest look at one man's attempt to adjust to the "sight" world. At First Sight offered a look into the struggles Virgil Adamson faced after having sight for the first since he was 1. The film also outlined the pain of his loved ones, as they tried to help him adjust to a new environment, while facing pain and confusion themselves.

At First Sight is an emotional roller coaster. The film jumps around from rejoicing, sadness, frustration, confusion, and happiness. Yet because these are very real emotions for the characters, the audience sympathizes. The film uses these emotions artfully, without appearing to jam them down the audience's throat.

As any good movie will, At First Sight opens the audience's eyes to the people who live through these experiences. Everyday things, like what a bird is, and what an expression means at a given moment, must be explained Virgil. The lessons Virgil must learn and the way he deals with them are both amusing and sad.

This movie challenges traditional beliefs by stating that a "handicap" is a barrier. Often the real problem is trying to fix it.

If you're in the market for an excellent movie, with a solid cast, and good effects, see At First Sight.

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.

I saw this film on AMC and part way through it, I felt as if I had seen it before. Then I realized I was thinking of the 1990 Penny Marshall film "Awakenings," starring Robin Williams and Robert De Niro.

"At First Sight" is a true story about a blind man who temporarily regains his sight, then goes blind again. "Awakenings" was about a comatose man who woke up temporarily, then slid back into a comatose.

Oh, and by the way, they're both written by the same guy.

For what it's worth, "Love At First Sight" is actually a pretty likable and overall watchable film. It's not great or anything unpredictable (how convenient - the female love interest) but Kilmer gives a remarkable performance (all considered) and there are a few moments in hte film that are a BIT out of the ordinary.

Worth watching, but don't go out of your way or anything.

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.

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.

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.

AT FIRST SIGHT (1999) ***

Starring: Val Kilmer, Mira Sorvino, Kelly McGillis, Steven Weber, Bruce Davison, Nathan Lane Director: Irwin Winkler 124 minutes PG-13 (for sexuality and nudity, and some language) ***

By Blake French, based on comment by Lynda French and Faye Blink:

In many ways "At First Sight," is not a good movie. For instance: It does not do a good job of explaining the inspiration for the plot, the blind man's optical surgery. That is unfortunate, because I really was interested in that concept.

The film, based on a novel called "To See and Not See," is centered on a man who has gotten used to being blind. He knows his entire way around New York. He then falls in love with an architect. Her name is Amy. Virgil, the blind man, is hired by complete coincidence to be her massager. The minutes he touches her, she knows that this man is different for other men she has formed relationships with in the past.

The plot is strong, but thin at the same time. For instance, the film takes heed in developing the characters, but never the conflict, or villain, or sub-plots. If the director would have decided to focus on those things a bit more, or a lot more in that matter, the film would have been wonderful. After all, it is well written and performed.

There is a sup-plot, however, that is detailed. The filmmakers throw in a false break up between two characters, and how Vigirl deals with the misguided presence of his distant father. This incidence is only in existence to create sappy melodrama to further the movie's running time.

My main recommendation comes only from the first rate performances from Kilmer and Sorvino. Val Kilmer ("The Saint" 1997, "Heat" 1994) delivers is outstanding as the blind man. He brings to life the confusion of lack of sight. Mira Sorvino ("Mimic," 1997, "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion," 1997) plays Amy with boldness and verve. She also captures the wonder and creativity of the audience's imagination. The sub-characters including Steven Weber ("Sour Grapes" 1998, "The Shinning," 1997) Bruce Davidson and Nathan Lane ("Mousehunt" 1997) are also very suburb in their roles.

That said, this film is not all that original. Think about it for a minute: two people fall in love, who have many differences and problems. Does this sound familiar? The truth: this is just another romance story with a gimmick. The film works, but only by the skin of its performances.

I've been a nurse for 20 years, and have been around many patients who must contend daily with what "normal" people would consider to be adversities and handicaps. I've always looked upon them with (1) great admiration for their personal strength and determination, and (2) a pervading sense of sorrow and an aching heart, for their "misfortune" in having been denied the opportunity to interact in the world with the benefit of an intact, healthy body.

This movie really struck an emotional chord with me, and made me realize how my feelings for these `unfortunates' could be construed as condescending and insensitive. I've often wished that I had the power to "heal" the handicapped, or to make them whole and "normal." The idea that they could feel totally satisfied, complete, and happy, despite their limitations -- and that it is presumptuous of us to think otherwise -- was intelligently brought to light in this screenplay.

This film is based upon a true story of a man who had come to terms with his blindness, and who, instead of wallowing in bitterness and self-pity, had learned to use his remaining senses of hearing, touch, smell, and taste -- along with a delightful sense of humor -- to become a happy, positive, and resourceful human being, with a keen sensitivity toward -- and appreciation of -- the world and the people around him. This is very much like handicapped patients I have cared for through the years, who left me in wonder at their strikingly positive attitudes and warmth toward humanity, despite the obstacles they face on a daily basis.

One of the reasons that I enjoy Val Kilmer's performances so much, is that he has the uncanny ability to capture the subtlest nuances of the characters he is portraying, whether it's Virgil, Doc Holliday, Jim Morrison, etc., and then is willing to bare his soul to bring the role to fruition for public enjoyment/critique. It's a risky, daring, thing to do -- and I applaud him for his courage! I appreciate the effort he makes to hone his performances by extensively researching the people and situations he is contracted to portray, instead of just showing up on the set, spewing his lines, picking up the paycheck, and moving on. His portrayal of a blind man was COMPLETELY believable, and I forgot for two hours that he was a sighted actor playing a part. One reviewer criticized him for smiling too much when his character interacted with people. I have to ask whether that person has ever watched Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles or Jose Feliciano, while they are interacting in social situations. Kilmer nailed this part, and beautifully expressed the gamut of emotions experienced by Virgil in the transformations that took place in his life.

Other issues that have been mentioned by reviewers: (1) -- A supposed `lack of chemistry' between Kilmer and Sorvino – I have to wonder if we were watching the same film! (2) -- Yes -- as a warning to households with young children -- there is nudity, but their intimate scenes were enacted beautifully, with sensitivity and tenderness; there was nothing raunchy or sensationalistic about them. However, some might take offense at the scene in the strip club – it wasn't essential to the plot development, and could have been omitted. (3) -- The only `bad language' in the film were rare, scattered expletives, which conveyed the understandable frustration of the main character when he was confronted with overwhelming emotions and tribulations, and (4) – the scene of confrontation between Virgil and his father, which some people thought unnecessary, but which I felt was very appropriate, since their relationship and the father's abandonment of the family had been such traumatic, devastating events in Virgil's life.

This film is an emotional roller-coaster ride, but WELL worth the trip – LOVED it! :o)

P.S. – If you haven't seen Kilmer as Doc Holliday in `Tombstone,' RUN, don't walk, to your nearest video store, and grab the Vista Series DVD – it's absolutely one of the best performances EVER recorded on film! The Academy must have slept through 1993!!!!

Val Kilmer (The Saint) is Virgil Adamson, who lost his eyesight at a young age. Val Kilmer does a great job playing the part.This is not an easy role. I think that I read somewhere that he wore contact lenses that blocked his vision. This is a very interesting character. Virgil is a really sweet person. Amy Benic, Mira Sorvino (Mighty Aphrodite) has to take a vacation at a resort because of her job and as she drives by in the night she sees this guy playing hockey. Jennie Adamson, Kelly McGillis (Top Gun), is his sister and has taken care of him all his life. Dr. Charles Aaron, Nathan Lane (The Bird Cage), helps Virgil to cope with the temporary gain of his eyesight. The problem is that not even the doctors know much about how to help Virgil. He has no sense of depth, no sense of perspective, can not read, the world as a person who can see is very treating to Virgil. I felt during this movie that most of us do take a lot of what we are and have for granted. I am very nearsighted and cannot see in the mirror, and have to ask for help when I lose my glasses. To me contact lenses and the highlight lenses are two of the most valuable inventions of this century. Most people do not realize that I am so nearsighted because of the nice lenses in my glasses and the contacts that I wear, but without those I would really in be trouble. As an adolescent I had problems because I thought that it was ugly to wear glasses. But I had no problems with contacts at that time. I have been wearing them since I was fifteen. My contact lenses are called Toric, and have to be custom made. I could never change my eye color with those lenses because that they do not come that way. Thank GOD for the scientific advancement of this century. I could not have laser surgery because my eyes have not stop getting worse. I have a real appreciation for Virgil. What I have is nothing compared to him! The ability to see the world, the beautiful color, our loved ones, understand people's expressions on their faces. That is all wonderful, and a wonder! I was thinking how difficult it is not to see and the special effects helped to comprehend the problem even better. Amy tries so much to help, but after trying so hard as Virgil did it is difficult to have hope. He lost his sight but did not lose his heart. This is a nice movie! Moreover especially because it is a true story. I recommend this movie.

Favorite Scenes: Virgil skating with Amy. Virgil playing hockey in the middle of the night. Watching or listening to a hockey game. Amy asked Virgil: Are they losing? He said: I prefer to think that they are not winning. What a positive attitude. The cotton candies! That is awesome. Favorite Quotes: " I wanted to behold not to be whole." " I am having a bad eye day!"

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.

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.

Well, if you've seen "Awakenings" or read "Flowers for Algernon" there's not much point in seeing this film, with one exception. Val Kilmer greatly irritates me for some reason. However, it is hard to discount his talent. He has made some of his previous roles, such as Jim Morrison, and Iceman, his own. He is good here, too, but still irritating. Nathan Lane, in a small part, was much less irritating than usual. Steven Weber, in another small role was just as irritating as always. Kelly McGillis is either not aging well, or deliberately played this one frumpy. That's probably the case as frumpy fits the character perfectly. And, Mira Sorvino. Well. She looked so beautiful with her sad smile against the winter backdrop. Her acting was good, too, I never thought of her as out of character throughout the film. This is worth seeing if you are a fan of Sorvino, or Kilmer. Otherwise, skip it.

1st watched 1/18/2002 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Irwin Winkler): Fairly well-done movie with a very similar storyline to `Awakenings'(Guess what, it's written by the same person !!) and based on a true story as well. What makes this movie work is the acting done by Val Kilmer and Mira Sorvino. Kilmer deserved more attention than he has received for his work in this movie. This was a difficult part of a blind person, who gets to see, and then goes blind again. But it's also about his girlfriend and how she changes as he changes(Sorvino). The love story is there but it's more about seeing life as it is and being content with your situation despite the imperfections of it. Kelly McGillis also does a good job as the protective sister. When the movie's over we understand her, and this shows us how well she portrays this character. McGillis is under worked and this movie displays her talents in this supporting role well. The only part that isn't explored very well is Kilmer's father figure. We find out why he left the family to fend for Kilmer but it doesn't seem genuine(where is the mother?). Despite this small plot oversight, overall this is a well-done drama with good acting all around. This movie should have opened up things for Kilmer but this overlooked movie didn't do a whole lot for anyone's career(sadly).

This movie was rolling along beautifully, right up until some point during the second half. Then, suddenly, it began to let me down. The pacing became uneven, too much was happening at once, and I lost the ability to suspend disbelief which is so critical to the enjoyment of most movies. Then Val Kilmer lost his sight again, and the movie turned to pure formula. What a letdown! It seemed so promising in the first half; new vistas were being explored. Somebody please put this movie back in the cutting room, clip off the entire second half, and re-film it! There was so much promise, and then it went off the deep end. 6/10.

An almost perfect date movie, AT FIRST SIGHT tells the largely true tale of a man, blind from an early age, who risks one last operation in an attempt to restore his sight. Val Kilmer, always an acquired taste, plays the blind guy. Mira Sorvino, looking an awful lot like the older daughter on FAMILY TIES, plays his newest love interest who encourages him to try the tricky operation. The film is long, but the romance leading up to Sorvino's determination to get Kilmer onto the operating table one more time, is strongly compelling. The film has a sensuous side, as Kilmer is a professional masseuse and has a very erotic massage scene involving a nearly naked Sorvino. Veteran actress Kelly McGillis of TOP GUN fame is aboard as Kilmer's overly protective older sister. If you can stand frequent closeups of Kilmer's flabby lips and googly eyes, AT FIRST SIGHT is hardly the worst chick flick ever made.

First of all, a note to director Irwin Winkler: one "powerful" monologue per ninety minutes is okay. Maybe. However, one every five minutes is not. You're not revolutionary, you're sloppy. Monologues with bad, supposedly uplifting background music do not replace plot or motivation or emotion. This is your last warning, Irwin.

Secondly, a note to whomever wrote the adapted screenplay, or, really, to everybody who was involved with this film in any way: doctors should know what's going on. Now, I'm not a doctor, but I do know that when an adult who has been blind since toddler-hood has his sight restored, adapting to this new sense will be very difficult. How does this come as a surprise to *anyone* in the film, especially the "best . . . on the eastern seaboard"?

I almost forgot: no one in the film is likable or sympathetic, not Sorvino, not Kilmer, and certainly not McGillis. The only exception is the always flamboyant Nathan Lane, who, while not especially good, was tolerable.

Never again.

If you can wade through the first half of At First Sight, you might wind up thinking that this film was worth seeing, albeit marginally. Kilmer and Sorvino have done much better work than this "please feel sorry for me" film. I didn't care for the characters and thus did not feel emotionally involved. Even Nathan Lane's character was flat and I was hoping he would have elevated the film to a respectable level. It didn't happen.Don't waste your valuable time on this poor effort.

When I first saw previews for this movie, I though it was a good idea. The trouble was, it wasn't an idea, it was a true story. A story that should have been left alone. This movie dragged in too much sex, too many tears, and way too many moments that had no significance whatsoever. It was long, boring, and sappy. There was no ending except for the little blurb that said they lived "happily ever after." Val Kilmer could never portray a blind man. He's known much too well. I believe that they should have gotten a new actor to play this role. The only person I thought did a terrific job was Nathan Lane. He was definitely perfect for this role. I would recommend that you don't waste seven, eight, nine bucks to see this film. I would even recommend wasting two, three bucks for renting it.

"At First Sight" is an absolutely amazing movie. I had hesitated to watch this film in the theaters cause of all the bad reviews it got from the critics and from word of mouth from other people i knew. Well, now I've learned a valuable lesson: Don't listen to what other people say. I knew I should have watched it in the theater but it's okay. I have seen it on video and nevertheless I saw it. I went into it expecting a big disappointment. But, rather than that, I fell in love with the movie. It touched me in every way. The fact that it really happened also made me feel extra emotions. This movie is a good one. I don't know what the critics were thinking. I don't know what my friends were thinking, but I guess when I look at it, us romance/drama movie buffs are a small number compared to the action/adventure movie buffs. This movie is absolutely amazing and whatever you do go see it. If you're a romance/drama movie person I'm sure you'll love it!!!

A very touching love story which has held up after 20 years. If this doesn't touch you, I don't know what will.

This movie doesn't have a lot going for it. The story has been done and really there wasn't much interesting dialogue...almost boring. But what it does have are two very strong performances form it's stars. Val Kilmer and Mira Sorvino are both at their best for this movie which is what saves it and makes it decent. I give it a 7/10.