The Life Before Her Eyes (2008)

you've seen the basic plot; young uma hears from pal he's going to bring guns and shoot people; she doesn't say anything; after endlessly long shots of computers, very, very slowly panning down to desk, ponderously down the chairs, finally to the floor, we discover- after machine guns and screams, that there are people dead; finally corned, uma gives up her best friend when the but says which one will i kill (someone watched sophie's choice); so back and forth we go, young uma, mom uma, and for some reason countless shots of diving into a pool and watching the hair flow in the water; there is a lot of that who knows why; but mainly who would you possibly be interested in in theis movie? there are no minor characters developed; uma's teenage pal is an airhead, young uma not much better, and as gorn up torments everyone around her because she said kill my friend not me; this is someone you care about? specially as it is the obvious basis for the movie and dragged out in endless flashbacks until the end of the movie- as if you couldn't see it coming in the first 10 minutes, a la back to that scene rerunning five more words of dialogue each time until... yes, we knew that long, long ago; faux near ending being that uma recalls that she was the one shot- leaving viewer to think 1. if the movie is all not true and uma was really shot, then how come uma the mom exists and why doid we have to watch the lie? or, 2. uma to cope pretends she was shot, and... so what? overall- tedious, endless diving into pools with flowing hair, repetitive (many scenes shown 3 and 4 times), obvious, sophomoric

One of the main reasons for picking this up is the star pairing of Uma Thurman and Evan Rachel Wood playing the same character Diana in a tale that explores how lives get changed and affected in a post Columbine styled school shooting. Directed by Vadim Perelman who also helmed The House of Sand and Fog, The Life Before Her Eyes is adapted from the novel by Laura Kasischke, and the first scene sets up the hook beautifully - what if you're caught in a dead end with your best friend, and a gunman?The narrative unfolds in non-linear fashion, which splits the story into two separate threads, one with the younger teenage Diana (Rachel Evan Wood) and her BFF Maureen (Eva Amurri) discussing the usual problems, issues and dreams a teenager would have, and their aspirations in life, and the other putting its focus on the adult Diana (Uma Thurman) now married to a professor and having to raise her child Emma (Gabrielle Brennan) who's quite a handful to handle, providing some mean reminiscence into her own past that she hopes she's able to steer her kid out from that doomed past.In character pieces like this, both lead actresses shine in their respective spheres, with Evan Rachel Wood playing yet again an impetuous youth living life her own way, never hesitating to dabble in sex and drugs, and basically the making all the mistakes that one can make as a teen. The chemistry shared with Eva Amurri was excellently convincing so much so that with the pivotal scene in the bathroom, you're put on the edge of your seat as to the choices that both will make. Which you can partake in if you put yourself in similar shoes, with a gun pointed at you and a chance to live, or die, per your wishes.Uma Thurman tackles her mom role with aplomb, juggling raising a kid with trying to avoid her past which is slowly coming back through flashbacks no thanks to the 15th anniversary of the fateful day in school. It may seem that she's living that perfect life, but the cracks soon show up and little things become opportunities for reminiscence. I suppose as a parent you will try that utmost best to avoid your kid repeating the same mistakes you have made, and will be on the lookout for warning signs. Thurman brings to the table that level of maturity, as well as a sense of paranoia as she tries hard to forget her past.Vadim Perelman created a film that's basically very dreamlike in quality as it deals with themes such as conscience and self-preservation, and crafted the key bathroom scene with ingenuity that keeps you constantly guessing how it will all play out, and pulling his punches at the right time to keep up that level of suspense right up to the end. Production values are purposefully split down the middle to differentiate the landscapes between the two time periods to reflect the lifestyle and mood of Diana and of course to throw clues in addition to what's being done by the narrative, with a haunting soundtrack throughout courtesy of James Horner.Some may not like the how the finale played out but I thought it was refreshingly different from the usual narrative twist attempts. Some may deem it not plausible, but I tend to consider it not as being performed during a single moment, but more of being worked on over a period of time. After all, an idea isn't just conceived and worked on overnight - we tend to think about it at some lengths not necessarily always during the same sitting. Even if you have an inkling of how it will play out, it's the delivery of key scenes and the wonderful dramatic performances that make this way above average. Recommended!

Given the number of puzzled viewers I thought it might be helpful to just pull together some messages I have left in answer to various questions on the IMDb message board. I found it more interesting than any film I have watched over the past few years. But I like off-kilter philosophical stuff that merits repeat viewings and gives the brain cells some challenging exercise. And I like adaptations that improve upon their source novels. I like Evan Rachel Wood visually and as an actress. I like carefully crafted films where the director, the production designer, and the editor have obviously been in sync and have created a synergy between the elements; where almost every detail has a purpose and there is not a lot of throw away fluff padding the running length or trying to expand the target audience.I can offer a few comparisons for prospective viewers; overall it is probably closest to "Carnival of Souls" (1962) so if you are a fan of that film I can almost guarantee that you will connect with this one. In style, Director Vadim Perelman reminds me a great deal of Atom Egoyan; so if you hated "Exotica", "Where the Truth Lies", or "The Sweet Hereafter" you would be wise to give "The Life Before Her Eyes" a wide birth. The story itself is a blend of "Home Room" and Donnie Darko (2001); with the match cut editing of "The Hours" (2002) linking three separate timelines together. Philosophically it blends the existential themes of "Carnival of Souls" and "The Wages of Fear" (1953), but I've not yet seen anyone else make this comparison.STOP!!! If you haven't seen it yet stop here, watch the film, come back and read the rest, and then watch it again. Don't read any further unless you are prepared for spoilers.The only scene that takes place in the present is the scene in the rest room. The other stuff is either Diana's flashbacks to her growing friendship with Maureen, or Diana's imagined future flashing before her eyes as she tries to make a decision. The flashbacks show viewers the process of Diana becoming less selfish and more responsible; a maturing that greatly complicates her decision.I was not as blown away after seeing the film for the first time as I am now, although I bought into the friendship dynamic completely. I like it a little better each time I view it (including watching it with the commentary special feature turned on). Much of it is expressionism, which we don't see much in American films, so it takes a while to really connect with the stuff. And that requires you to let go of the plot and just go with the style and the theme, something easier to do "after" the first viewing. Everything is a literary device and getting caught in a plausibility trap will prevent you from making the connection needed to really go beneath the surface of the story.The really incredible thing to me is how uniquely it explores the implications of friendship/conscience. There are rewards to friendship but also obligations (responsibilities) and if you don't feel these, then you are mistaking friendship for something much shallower. Diana's life essentially becomes a Hobson's choice; between something and nothing. And the viewer gets to watch as Wood nonverbally conveys the process of her character slowly coming to that realization. The "life before her eyes" becomes nothing once she understands the implications of that option.The film is all about point of view, everything is being seen from Diana's POV except for the rest room scene which is from the audience point of view; where the actress Wood is communicating nonverbally with viewers in about the best acting sequence you are likely to ever witness. She is simultaneously flashing back to events in her friendship with Maureen and to parallel events in her imagined future.Essential to understanding this process (and the film) is to recognize that she and Maureen have already spent a lot of time together imagining each others' futures; and that these times are central to Diana's thoughts and decision-making process in the rest room.I think that the key sequence (which I only really picked up on during a later viewing) is when they are walking together on the sidewalk as the lawn sprinkler showers them with mist. The sequence is repeated later for emphasis. During this Maureen talks about how she used to watch flowers in a heavy rain. Telling Diana how the rain will crush the flowers, yet amazingly "some" of them are able to recover and bloom again as if nothing had happened. Diana flashes back to this and it is central to her decision. She believes that if she is killed instead of Maureen, that it will crush Maureen but that she will recover and bloom again. She contrasts this to the life she is imagining for herself if she allows Maureen to be killed, and the result is reflected in the crushed, decayed, and withered flowers that are symbolically shown in the later scenes of her imagined future.Also note the scenes where Diana is searching for Emma. What the director and production designer are trying to communicate in those scenes is that the real Diana has already been shot and her imaginary future is unraveling. Watch what happens to the necklace the adult Diana is wearing in the woods (falling in the water in the woods coincides with the young Diana falling into the water that is pooling on the rest room floor), her necklace has broken and the stones are hanging in the same pattern the bullets made on the young Diana's chest.There is a director's commentary on the DVD, in which he takes you through every clue and symbolic reference in his film.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

This is a terrible movie. Even if you are a fan of the talented Evan Rachel or Uma it's just so bad it's not worth it. The story is weak. Without the voyeuristic need to see the Columbine like shooting - there is really little to draw the viewers attention.What a badly written story. The flashbacks are way too often - every few minutes. Even though the ending twist is clear - it's a disappointing and annoying end - so you feel you wasted your time.The acting is quite good. Watched this cause I'm a fan of Evan Rachel & Uma. Evan looked really pretty and acted well. Eva Amurri is a little too unattractive in a distracting way she doesn't have the star quality of her mother. Uma was a bit haggard but acted well. Just feel terrible that such talented actresses were associated with this terrible endeavour.