jb-307 You can tell simply by the negative summaries what this trash of a film is all about, how it is viewed by the public. We hate it. We want to take away the right to make any film from this writer / director, so he can never again punish us with his drivel.Look what people write about this movie: Numbing, stultifying, deadly dull. Like an overdose of L-Tryptophan. This film was so boring it made me fall asleep. Over indulgent piece of crap. Pretentious claptrap...misses by a country mile. Self-indulgent and stale.There is NO entertainment in this film. IF you want to be entertained, go to a real movie, almost any other movie. Do yourself a favor, save time and save money and avoid this like the plague it is.I am truly sorry that I am forced to give this a big 1 (awful) rating, because at most it deserves a ZERO. Unfortunately for us, IMDb doesn't allow zeros or negative numbers.

peter-rinaldi I refuse to reveal anything about this movie because I want you to see it like I saw it, without any knowledge of what it was about. If you haven't seen this film yet, and are about to see it, I envy you.I loved this film so much that I couldn't even speak to my girlfriend after it was over. I was overcome with emotions that no film has ever revealed in me. My girlfriend said it was probably the best film she was ever seen (!!!!). The next week after seeing it, we brought (no exaggeration) 7 friends to see it with us again. we all sat in the theater for about 15 minutes with the lights on wiping our eyes and talking about it.I am not expecting everyone to have the same reaction I did, but a lot of these comments on this page are very oddly negative, like in a real angry way. even if it doesn't speak to you, this as a small, thoughtful, extremely well made film that doesn't deserve to be crapped on as if it was Transformers 3.If you are someone who appreciates films with REAL depth that reward your attention, are not insulting to your intelligence and that are moving in an authentic way, then you will love this film.

johnwaynebosley American cinema doesn't have a history of taking risks. Instead it likes to put movies out into the public like cars on an assembly line. Same car, same make. They just change up the details. What the writer/director does in TSOS is to take risks and take on some difficult issues. Instead of having the actors explain everything as we're going along, he takes the risk of allowing the film to develop on its own.If you go to watch a film made from Hollywood you might get that "wow" effect... but what about the second, third, fourth time? Do you get more out of each time? Or do you just find the same? With TSOS it's more like a play or novel. There are enough layers that you don't completely understand the story in its full extent until you watch it over and over again. It's like strong medicine and some of the weaker critics who only like "fluff films" and "cheap entertainment experiences" won't appreciate what this film has to offer.

enedzel I saw Sensation of Sight on Friday night at the Denver Film Festival. I thought it was a very good film with an excellent ensemble cast. The audience at the screening gave a round of applause and seemed to have a very positive reaction. The story realistically portrays a small circle of people struggling to communicate their feelings of grief and loss, although there is a nice touch of the mystical as well. The first time writer and director, Aaron Wiederspahn was there and spoke at the screening along with David Strathairn, Scott Wilson, Ian Somerhalder, Ann Cusack, Elisabeth Waterson and Joseph Mazzello. The cast unanimously spoke well of the director and their experience making the film. They all stayed at the same bed and breakfast shown in the movie and shot it in 18 days; true independent film making.