At First Sight Review
by LARRY MCGILLICUDDY (PCSQ84F AT prodigy DOT com)February 5th, 1999
At First Sight (1999)
Reviewed by Larry McGillicuddy 1999
*** (of 4)
Directed by Irwin Winkler
Starring Val Kilmer, Mira Sorvino, Kelly McGillis, Nathan Lane, Bruce Davison, Steven Weber
Conflict is overrated. Too many screenwriters who have based their work on the numerous books that teach you how to write a screenplay step by step feel the need to inject conflict at every possible moment. At First Sight is a good example of this. There are so many things about this film that work so well, but at times the forced conflict is so embarrasingly mindless it made me cringe.
At First Sight is based on a story by Oliver Sacks about restored sight. In the film, Val Kilmer plays Virgil Adamson, a man who has been blind since he was 3. He works as a masseuse at a vacation resort. This is where he bumps into architect Amy Benic (Sorvino). These early scenes between them are nothing short of fantastic. Kilmer and Sorvino have a dynamic chemistry, and the film could've simply focused on their romance the entire running time and be successful.
But I know that's not the only story Irwin Winkler wants to tell. This film is also about how a blind man copes with restored sight. There is nothing wrong with this, considering the early scenes here are also quite effective. Bruce Davison is a doctor who performs a surgery to help Virgil restore his sight. Virgil's first moments of sight are very frightening, since has has no idea what exactly he is looking at.
The moments of this story I enjoyed most dealt with Virgil attempting to make sense of what he is seeing. For example, he knows what an apple looks like, but he can't tell the difference between a real apple and a picture of an apple. Virgil is aided by visual therapist Phil Webster (Nathan Lane). Lane's performance is very good, but I wish there was more of his character here. I would've preferred more scenes of human interaction and therapy between Virgil and Phil than dull lectures from Bruce Davison's character.
But that's only a minor problem. The film's two biggest flaws are the introduction of two minor characters that didn't need to be in this story. Steven Webber plays Sorvino's ex-husband and boss. First of all, it's hard to beleive these two were ever married,and it's even harder to beleive that their breakup wouldve been amicable enough for her to still want to work for him. But conflict is necessary says these screenwriting books, and the screenplay makes the major mistake of presenting Webber's character as a threat to Virgil and Amy's romance. This guy is the most pathetic and pointless character since John Pankow in The Object of My Affection. Any scene he is in shakes the credibility of the entire film.
Another misconceived character comes in the form of Virgil's father. He left Virgil many years ago when he couldn't find a cure for his blindness. When he learns of Virgil's restored sight, he tries to arrange a meeting between them. I don't care about this. The father is a throwaway character who we only see in two scenes, but the film asks us to find the scene between them touching and sad. It's just a mindless way to inject more conflict for Virgil than was necessary.
Instead, why couldn't the film give a better subplot for Virgil's sister (very well played by Kelly McGillis)?. She has seemingly devoted her entire life to taking care of Virgil, so why not show scenes where she wonders about her future without Virgil? Now that he's with Amy, she no longer has anyone to come home to and take care of. Scenes like this would've been more touching than a lame father- son reunion. The film does hint at this once, but it's quickly abandoned.
Yet once again this year, I enjoyed a film despite the appearance of several major flaws. If the allure of the friday night lights propelled Varsity Blues past it's flaws, then what works here is the powerful romance between Virgil and Amy. Mira Sorvino is a terrific actress, and this performance is among her best. She has a natural ability to show how much she cares for someone without even having to say a word. Val Kilmer abandons his usual brooding, egotistical style of performance and instead creates a character that he actually seems to care about. Virgil is sweet, funny, smart, and even infuriating. Kilmer is able to bring out all these traits perfectly, which is certainly more impressive than the simple technical task of looking like a blind person. Together, they have immense chemistry and are able to carry the entire film past even it's most gaping of flaws.
Larry McGillicuddy
http://members.xoom.com/lmcgill/movpage.htm
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
