The Life Before Her Eyes (2008)

Nice effects though.

A-maz-ing

All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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.

This film shows us some of the best cinematography I've seen in years & is a masterpiece. Ukranian born Vadim Perelman comes back with sheer & utter blinding talent on this film after his debut as a screenwriter and director for House of Sand & Fog (2003) starring Ben Kingsley & Jennifer Connelly. Cinema is much more interesting when new directors try new exciting ways of telling a story. I can't wait to see Perelman's third film Poltergeist hopefully to be out in 2013.Creating the sequences in The Life Before Her Eyes must have been nerve-racking; trying to decipher life into tiny moments by editing various time frames together to make an extremely intelligent and complex interplay of images. We seldom if ever find a film that captures the fleetingness of life in such a philosophical and allegorical way. The use of a superb mixture of images, motif, sound, timing, smart dialogue, use of replay for traumatic overture & cascading suspense, mystery, casting, direction, editing, & acting all give this film every ingredient for top notch rating and life-long impact.The sound conflict-resolution theme allows the viewer to expect more from this film, promising us to deliver the right message at the right time, often bring us just a step away from the precipice, but always jerking us back in the nick of time to prepare us for the next series of revealing sequences. The film quickly establishes the main characters, who play a very important role in the telling. Diana is doubly played as young (Evan Rachel Wood) and the 15 years older (Uma Thurman). Both roles are played with believability. Wood holds her own against the backdrop of a much more mature Thurman since Wood's eyes look to tell everything about her in seconds. A picture can do that, yet not many actors are interesting enough to have that Hollywood starlet allure, yet both Wood & Thurman seem to capture the essence of the role and play it convincingly well.Funny that the working title of this film was changed from "In Bloom" back to The Life Before Her Eyes". It would almost seem a better name for the film as to not give away the experience of watching the film unfold without any clues or cues as to what may transpire. The Turkish title Bir nefeste hayat translates out to "The Life in a breath".Certain lines in this films tend to set you on either euphoria or the precipice. The lines most interestingly positioned in the film for maximum effect are "Conscience is the voice of GOD, the nature and heart of man." "The heart is the body's strongest organ." A fact "72% of the body is composed of water. Also, when Michael says "If I don't kill you, who should I kill?" Symbolism is used throughout this film. The master of symbols used in this film has to be the symbolic nature of water to represent life & death. We see this death metaphor played out in humanity with the phrases "River of Life", "Crossing Over Jordan", & the piercing of Jesus's side & the mixing of blood with water. The secondary motif often used is flowing blood. A third motif is blinding fog.James Horner, who also worked with the director of this film on House of Sand and Fog, delivers a haunting music score, which adds to the David Lynchian style of sensory overload. The overall haunting effect of this film on your senses makes this 2002 novel written by Laura Kasischke a perfect career debut film choice for screenplay writer Emil Stern III wrote the screenplay for Tenderness (2009 Russell Crow).

I've never posted a review or even so much as commented on a film here, or anywhere else BUT after just viewing this movie I wanted to see other opinions.This was the first site I stumbled upon. Im not even going to comment on the the life before her eyes, instead I'd like to question some of the negative reviews left. To slate a movie and then say that the you "skipped" scenes and obviously didn't pick up on MAJOR plot points explained throughout the movie many times is sad to be honest. Many of the negative reviews are complete drivel and only serve to show the stupidity or idiocy of the reviewer.Other negative reviews are coherent and we'll written and even though I enjoyed the movie I can understand some of the annoyances. I doubt I'll ever take the time to post here again :D (Im the lazy sort) but I would recommend this movie to anyone as its one of the better movies I've seen in a long time :) BUT I would warn that its slow moving and tries to be a little too emotional for its own good.that is all