If this film's plot sounds vaguely familiar, it may be because you've possibly heard of the real life events that inspired it. However, the more likely reason is that it also bears strong narrative resemblances to the 1990 Robin Williams/Robert De Niro film, "Awakenings."
With that film and "At First Sight" being inspired by the writings of Dr. Oliver Sacks (the first based on his 1973 novel of the same name and the latter based on the story "To See and Not See" in his 1995 novel "An Anthropologist on Mars"), such similarities shouldn't come as a huge surprise.
Both feature characters who've been affected by a disability for all of their adult life and from which they're miraculously freed by the marvels of "modern" technology. The plots, that obviously contain another character who serves as a catalyst for that "awakening" (a doctor in the first and a romantic interest here), then follow both characters' reactions of finding themselves in a world that's now foreign to them.
Of course, setbacks -- while presumably holding firm to the truth of the real-life stories -- inevitably follow, and although this film isn't quite as sad as the end of "Awakenings," it contains all of the proper ingredients for a mild roller coaster ride into the world of mostly predictable melodrama.
While most moviegoers can't imagine what it would be like to have never seen or to be "frozen" in a catatonic body (as was De Niro's character in "Awakenings"), "At First Sight" has a harder time succeeding for several reasons. First, the story simply isn't as intriguing as that found in the other film. However, it's also much harder to represent what Kilmer's character goes through upon regaining his sight than with De Niro reacting to the "new" world around him.
Although the concept -- of having a person blind from birth suddenly being able to see as an adult and whether their visual cognition is physically or cognitively based -- is intriguing and offers a myriad of wonderful opportunities and frustrating complications, it's a near impossible task to fully and satisfactorily present on film.
Coming off as more of an academic/research subject than a cinematic one -- despite the ensuing inherent conflict that works on a dramatic level -- it's difficult for the audience to grasp this unless they've been in very similar shoes (which is highly unlikely).
Although director Irwin Winkler ("The Net," "Night and the City") shows Virgil stumbling about as he tries to make sense of what he's visually perceiving, as well as distorted images intended to present his visual point of view, the whole concept works better on an intellectual, rather than a visual (for the audience) level. As such, while the plot of "At First Sight" has that intriguing premise, it's only the sheer star power of the leads that makes the film work and keeps it from falling too far into the realms of a made-for-TV melodrama.
Audiences love seeing the pairing of attractive performers in romantic dramas, and those of both genders couldn't ask for much better than Val Kilmer and Mira Sorvino. The two make an attractive and believable couple, and their "easy on the eye" good looks prevent the audience from fully realizing that the material from which the performers are working -- intellectual and conceptual elements aside -- is standard issue dramatic fodder.
There's never any doubt that a romance will blossom between the two, or that the medical procedure will be a success. As in any similar film, however, freshman screenwriter Steve Levitt delivers the inevitable complications -- both medical and romance-based -- that are supposed to heighten the drama.
While one can never be sure how much artistic license has been taken, the story simply needs a bit more pizzaz to fully engage the audience. Sure, some in the audience will get teary-eyed, and to its credit the film does click at times on an emotional level, but it never really completely worked for me (and I'm often a sucker for films like these).
Val Kilmer ("The Saint," "The Ghost and the Darkness") gives a decent performance in a role that's normally earmarked for award considerations (performers love to play characters with disabilities or other medical conditions -- a la De Niro in "Awakenings" and many, many others), but I doubt it's going to happen here.
While he does a good job playing a blind person, it's difficult to fully buy into that notion (since you know that in reality he can see), and trying to portray the reactions to such confusing and overwhelming stimuli -- as earlier noted -- is a near impossible task to convincingly pull off. Kilmer gives it his best shot -- and for the most part it works -- but it's never inherently believable.
Mira Sorvino ("The Replacement Killers," "Mimic"), who won an Oscar for her role in "Mighty Aphrodite," unfortunately doesn't have as much substance in which to sink her thespian teeth. Pretty much relegated to the supporting and concerned "second fiddle," Sorvino does the best with what she's been given, but there's not a great deal of depth there for her.
Other performers, such as Kelly McGillis ("The Accused," "Top Gun") as Virgil's overly protective sister and Nathan Lane (""Mouse Hunt," "The Birdcage") as a briefly used psychologist/therapist, are given even less with which to work, and easily could have been replaced with lesser known stars.
Even so, the film -- whether true or not to the real story -- is too predictable and features too many symbolic bits of forced ideological dialogue about not really seeing something until you really look at it, etc... Although the film does make one pause to reflect on how most everyone takes their senses for granted while also offering an interesting educational/physiological question about the true meaning of sight, as an overall piece of dramatic work it's only moderately successful. Because of that, we give "At First Sight" a 5.5 out of 10.