Review of At First Sight

2/10
This movie was too long, too sappy, had no ending, and Val Kilmer didn't portray a blind man very well.
16 January 1999
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.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed