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.
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.