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 . 
