The Life Before Her Eyes (2007) User Reviews

A spoiler to explain some of the negative comments

[moute-nicolas · 7/10 · 17 September 2008]

*** MAJOR Spoiler **** The following is a significant spoiler, but important to understand the movie, but also many of the negative comments herein.

Surprisingly, and despite the fairly obvious title, most people have not understood the plot. The movie is about a girl that imagines her future life in the few minutes before being shot. So the whole part of the movie where you see old Diana is in fact a young girl's imagination hence some of the critic about the character of old Diana. Furthermore, because there is not 15 years difference between the two periods, you do see on purpose mobile phones or flat screens in the "young days".

For the rest a very good movie in my opinion.

A Compromised Film of Two Parts

[tigerfish50 · 5/10 · 12 April 2010]

The narrative of 'Life Before Her Eyes' switches backwards and forwards between two episodes in the life of Diana McFee. The first is her teenage summer prior to a Colombine-style high school massacre - while the second occurs twenty years later, as her town prepares to remember this tragic event's anniversary. In the high school time-line, Diana (Evan Rachel Wood) hangs out with best friend Maureen (Eva Amurri), alternately discussing future plans and current boyfriends. Their fine performances are captured in radiant dreamlike cinematography which intensifies a sense of foreboding as they approach their fateful encounter with a homicidal armed schoolmate.

In the later sequences, a 30-something Diana (Uma Thurman) is embroiled in another crisis, with her marriage under strain and her daughter exhibiting rebellious tendencies similar to Diana's student behavior. Unfortunately these segments are handicapped by Thurman's lifeless performance. By the end of the film all the loose ends have been neatly resolved, but the climax is ruined by a plot twist which contradicts all the previous character development. Apparently this flawed finale was forced on the producers at Thurman's insistence.

She's Not There

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 27 April 2008]

Greetings again from the darkness. Most rated director Vadim Perelman's "House of Sand and Fog" higher than I, but I believe this is a much better and far more interesting film than his earlier effort. Based on the novel by Laura Kasischke, this is a bit of an eerie mind-bender that maintains an intoxicating look and feel.

Evan Rachel Wood adds to her amazing list of strong performances with pure teen angst, but this time there is an additional depth not seen before. Uma Thurman plays the 15 year senior version of Ms. Woods character and delivers one of her best yet. Also of note is Eva Amurri as Wood's friend Maureen who plays a key role at decision time. Ms. Amurri is also Susan Sarandon's real life daughter.

Can't give away much of this one, but I will say it is a joy to watch scene construction and the back and forth between present and past (or is it present and future) make for a multi-layered film that is engrossing in its delivery. Plus, the Zombies song makes a few appearances ... very cool.

Diana's lesson about conscience.

[TxMike · 26 December 2008]

I like both of the lead actresses and that made the movie worth watching. As the story was unfolding I found it a bit slow, but once everything was revealed I understood why.

This is a story with a "twist", and therefore is difficult to say much about without revealing something important for those who have not seen it yet. But it has to do with "conscience" and how our minds create the image of the person we want to be.

Uma Thurman is the adult Diana McFee, and Evan Rachel Wood, 15 years earlier, is the Young Diana. The movie is edited so that it switches often between the two periods of time. But the movie actually starts and ends within about the same 3 or 4 minutes of time, while Diana is in high school.

Other key characters are Eva Amurri (Susan Sarandon's daughter) as Diana's best friend in high school, Maureen. And cute little Gabrielle Brennan as adult Diana's daughter Emma McFee. Diana's husband is Brett Cullen as Paul McFee, a professor she began to idolize as she went to a presentation of his for a class assignment when she was 17.

MAJOR SDPOILERS, DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE: As the movie begins we see some of the typical issues for a high school girl, and Diana and Gabrielle make a quick stop in the girls' restroom before their next class. As they banter they hear rifle shots, and quickly figure out that a student is shooting other students and faculty. The gunman enters the restroom and encounters them, saying I am going to kill one of you. The movie flashes to this scene several times and since we see the adult Diana 15 years later we must figure that her friend had been shot. But no, Diana had formed her conscience to care more for her friend, and said "Shoot me." When the boy did, and then turned the gun on himself, at the same time student Diana falls mortally wounded the adult Diana, looking for her child in the woods, also falls mortally wounded. The whole movie of the adult Diana was a "flash forward", her imagined life before her, during the moments before she died.

First Time I felt I needed to voice my opinion

[windycityrumbler · 7/10 · 10 July 2009]

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

Predictable (SPOILER ALERT)

[certhia · 6/10 · 2 July 2008]

Having just finished watching this film I feel compelled to write a review. I decided to watch this since I was impressed by The House of Sand and Fog, which had something dark and compelling. This one however had an empty feel to it. Not long into the movie you cannot help but realize that the flash-backs are in fact flash-forwards into a possible future that Diana sees for herself if she makes the who-is-to-die decision in favor of herself (meaning Maureen dies). The song She's Not There gives away that fact way too fast. From there on there's only one possible ending (well perhaps still two possible endings but if the alternative had been the case the film would have been even more mute). Then why do I still give it 6 stars? Well because I appreciated the effort and the acting of Evan Rachel Wood as the young Diana and of Eva Amurri as the deluded Maureen. What I can never help wondering (and not just with his movie) why there needs to be such bad CGI in it. In this case the birds that you see flying away all the time. They are so totally fake that it detracts from the movie and why do they need to be there in the first place? To give us an ominous feeling? Well then you won't succeed by giving us fake birds. Never got it. All in all a nice effort by Vadim Perelman but falling way short of The House of Sand and Fog.

Superb Drama!!!!!

[rkwpk · 7/10 · 8 September 2008]

The life before her eyes, as the title suggest is the depiction of ones life flashing through in a millisecond but the way it was projected in this film is so dramatic and thoughtful that one cant seem to forget about this movies even after watching it more than one time.

This is the story of friendship, parenting, relationships, everything what life is all about and all these elements are placed in this film so well and interconnected that the viewers are indulged in the characters.

"The strongest muscle in the body is the heart" physically but heart at the same time is the weakest muscle of all if seen emotionally and this film present this bitter reality of life, dramatically if not emotionally, to the viewers excellently.

Directed by Vadim Perelman (his second film) known for exceptionally superb "The house of Sand & Fog", though not very strong as the later, this shows the talent, perception and a vision this man has. From the cast the best performance comes from Evan Rachel Wood who plays the main role and believe me this girl has a lot of talent to become a superstar actor in the near future.

Back ground music was very typical with this kind of movies, but with the concept, the drama & the intrigue this movie has, you tend to forget about that.

Thats all and I would definitely recommend this movie to all looking for a serious, dramatic & emotional treat. A 7/10 for "The life before her eyes"

Muddled, empty weeper.

[theskulI42 · 4/10 · 27 August 2008]

Vadim Perelman has the Lifetime Channel TiVo'd 24 hours a day, especially while he went to film school. That can be the only explanation as to why he seems to make nothing but garishly ornate melodramatic weep stories. His most famous film, House of Sand & Fog, kept a handle on the waterworks until its preposterous and forced conclusion. His newest film, The Life Before Her Eyes, is not quite so lucky.

The film's storyline follows two eras of the same woman, jumping back and forth between teenager Diana (Evan Rachel Wood), and her adult counterpart (Uma Thurman), suffering survivors' guilt after surviving a school shooting where she was directly faced with death and forced to make a choice (whether she or her friend should die). In a sort of questionable career choice, she works in a school just down the street from the school where she was faced with the horrible event, the exact place that gives her all the bad memories that trigger all the flashbacks that we have to sit through. The narrative is cyclical, jumping back and forth between the time before the shooting, depicting Diana's unlikely friendship with an innocent church girl, and her affair with an older man, and her current life, where she is a bit emotionally estranged from her husband due to the troubling memories, taking care of her young child.

Most noticeably, the film is hideously over-directed. Perelman imbues every transition and a lot of extended sequences with this precious ornamental quality that makes the emphasis meaningless, giving as much emotional weight to a tulip as he affords to a murdered teenager. I will give credit where credit is due, the shot of one student lying dead in the gym with beams of light is a striking shot, but, drawing comparisons to 300, most of the film is seemingly shot that way, which makes the freshness turn sour quite quickly. He needs someone to tell him, "No", and make sure he only uses his visual flair when it's more necessary. If you put ketchup on everything, invariably you're going to get sick of it, especially because ketchup doesn't go on everything.

The other major problem for the film is that its weepiness is so restrained that it makes a film a curiously empty experience. Something overwrought qualities could have turned it into camp (not the director's preferred choice of enjoyment, but enjoyment all the same), but much of the film's runtime is spent in mundane purportedly "meaningful" or ironic discussions of pre- and post-shooting life, or tiresome, continuous flashbacks to the exact same moment (The Moment, if you will), and there's not really enough variation or meaning in the sequence to require its appearance so frequently.

The film culminates with an idiotic twist in its final reels, one that, including being stupefying, is also presented in a way that is both baffling and infuriating, as it negates everything that comes before it. That in itself doesn't necessitate failure (there's a certain film, one of the best of this decade, that did exactly this, and made even less sense; if you've seen it, you know what it is ), but the way it is presented here, especially after having to sit through so much blathering nonsense, makes it feel like an extra helping of cheapness thanks to the fact that it negates much of the story. The Usual Suspects utilized this sort of twist after giving us a captivating and exciting crime tale, then dropping the bomb. The Life Before Her Eyes gives us slice of life minutiae, then tells us none of it happened. Why did what sounds to be a poignant examination of grief and life need a 'twist' anyway? Did The Sweet Hereafter need a twist ending? I think not. The way it comes off when it happens, it smacks of desperation and intellectual exhaustion, turning this supposed character study into a bizarre anti-abortion screed that it doesn't fit in. There's a reason you haven't heard of this movie, folks, and I watch 'em so you know when you're at Blockbuster or browsing Netflix, you can skip right past The Life Before Her Eyes.

You're welcome.

{Grade: 4/10 (C-) / #48 (of 66) of 2008}

Gorgeous to watch and hopefully will inspire conversation

[bratkievich · 8/10 · 3 May 2008]

I don't usually write or like reactive comments but in some cases I feel so strongly about previous comments that I can't keep quiet. And there are serious spoilers ahead.

"Copycat"? Last time I checked, "copycat" is used when you imitate slavishly, you just reproduce some previous thing. Now, if someone can't see the differences between "The Sixth Sense," "Elephant," and "The Life Before Her Eyes," maybe that person should watch more movies before writing. Taking another idea and putting a different spin on it has been done forever, since art began, in paintings, music, literature, all arts. That's creativity, when you put something personal on an old story. Now that person might think that we only need one film about a high school shooting and its consequences. We already have "Elephant;" why do we need more? It's not like we keep having shootings, right? I would also be really sad if I thought that the subjects treated in this movie are only interesting to academics.

"Overly-convenient plot points"? Well, it's all her imagination of her own life before dying. You can't expect realism when it all has this dreamy, life passing before your eyes feeling (with a clever twist). Of course the reminders will keep popping up and flooding her consciousness. Besides, since when all films have to be realistic? On one level, the film represents the guilt and remorse experienced by someone who keeps trying to forget a traumatic incident. But sometimes the hardest you try, the more things keep reminding you of it. The film could have interwoven a brief scene imitating a shock of memory, instead it presents it from an external source, which is how you sometimes feel the memory of traumatic events, as something that is coming from outside, something that you can't prevent or avoid, like a radio that tells us what we've been doing the best effort to put out of our minds.

"A LOT of contrived pathos"? It's about a person dying!!!!!

"An exploitation of columbine"? See comment above about "coypcat."

"Metaphor-laden"? Amazingly, it's only the professional critics who are invoking this one. I really don't understand critics anymore. It's true that speaking plainly has its advantages. But since when do all films have to follow the same rules? Some artists thrive using metaphors. Let them use them! Or maybe they actually are annoyed because they understand the metaphors and we all know that the more unintelligible a film is, the better. Especially if we DO think that we understand them, because that means that we're part of the intelligent elite that can appreciate those films.

"Confusing" and "tiring flashback-flash forward method"? The film follows the pathway of memory, which goes through associations (metonymies, metaphors, repetitions, similarities) and not chronology. Now, wouldn't it be so much less hard if all the past were first and the future later? I guess we're too intelligent so we're above the metaphors but putting pieces in the right order is haaard!

Finally, the jewel: "An overwrought and patently offensive anti-abortion drama"? Clearly, this is coming from a man (Lou Lumenick, New York Post). And he might not have any friends that have had abortions. I'm pro-choice but I know that all of my friends who did it had feelings of remorse (not guilt, although that could be a component). What do you think? That a woman just pretends that it never happened, that she never questions if she could have done something differently. That doesn't mean you're making an anti-abortion diatribe. It's just dealing with a hard, traumatic memory. I'm so sorry that this critic thinks that talking about those feelings implies a moral choice. Talk about manicheism.

I'm not saying that the film is flawless. Maybe it is too precious, even though it has a good excuse for it. It's a collection of idealized moments of past and future passing through someone's imagination. You could certainly find fault in the way that Evan Rachel Wood is sexualized; I mean, the camera really loves her and it's clearly from a male perspective. Others might be able to live with such obvious exponent of "the male gaze."

An often misunderstood film about choices and the value of life.

[J_M_REVIEW · 7/10 · 25 May 2022]

This film isn't just about survivors of a school shooting. It's about hopes, dreams, and fears in relation to what a life can be or may never be. It's also about friendships, mistakes, regrets, misplaced love, choices, and how everything can change in the blink of an eye.

I would have preferred a bit more character development and stronger performances at times. But, that's somewhat forgivable considering the poetic message that the film ultimately strives for.

The tragic (and sadly still relevant) topic of school shootings is only a framework for a story about choices and the value of life.

This is a very good and very underrated film.

P. S.

I started writing this review three days ago, only to see the news yesterday of the school shooting in Uvalde Texas at Robb Elementary School. 19 children killed, and two adults. A horrific tragedy.

My heart goes out to the families of those victims and to everyone affected by ALL violent acts (everywhere in the world). I continue to hope for a future where every life is cherished, protected, and celebrated.

Choose LOVE.

An intensely beautiful picture

[markmaker27 · 9/10 · 9 September 2007]

I had the privilege of seeing this film at its World Premiere this weekend at the Toronto Film Festival. From the very opening sequence, this picture draws you in with its sheer beauty. The cinematography is terrific and at some points even terrifying (in a breath taking way) but what impressed me most was the dialog. Everything seemed so real, which played up every detail to me and made the picture all the more engrossing. Uma Thurman is top notch in this but i believe that Evan Rachel Wood really makes it because honestly, who else could we expect to play the teen angst better than her? The relationship between Eva Amurri's Maureen and Wood's Diana is so realistic in every situation and much of that credit has to go to Emil Stern's adaptation. There are so many themes that run deep throughout this movie, and the ever pressing scare of school shootings makes this hit home really really hard. This is an amazing film that will touch every single emotion and leave you thinking about it for days. Go see this movie whenever you get the chance. It is an intensely beautiful and moving film and most definitely one of the best I have seen so far this year.

A little anti-climactic...

[mrgngrnr · 6/10 · 22 June 2021]

It was a decent movie. I'm a huge fan of Uma & Evan Rachel Wood.... With that being said... The ending made me kind of mad. There's so much more they could've done with that movie.

Sorry guys, this will be the worst film of the year.

[fullercramden · 2/10 · 9 April 2008]

Well, I don't usually muster up the energy to post reviews on IMDb, but frankly, after seeing all of the glowing reviews on here, I felt compelled to get the word out, as I'm sure there are people who share my point of view on this film.

I really don't mean to come across as unnecessarily harsh or critical, but this was probably the worst film I've seen in the past year. Yes, even worse than the latest studio offerings such as Vantage Point and 21.

You know how you go into a movie, and about ten minutes in, you get that horrible but ever-present "oh my god, this movie is going to be terrible" feeling? That's pretty much what this film's wholly unrealistic dialog and incredibly heavy-handed score brought out in me. Add on a number of overly-convenient plot points (let's have the character turn on the radio just as an expository news report is broadcast), a LOT of contrived pathos, an exploitation of columbine, and the most absurd and atrocious ending which makes the film go from bad to immeasurably worse... and you have "Life Before Her Eyes." And note - I enjoyed House of Sand and Fog.

I'll finish this up by saying that Evan Rachel Wood's performance, in spite of the horrible dialog she had to work with, was pretty good, all things considered. Someone needs to get this girl some good material so she can truly shine.

The Ultimate Test Of Courage And Friendship

[Chrysanthepop · 23 April 2009]

Vadim Perelman's 'The Life Before Her Eyes' is just as powerful but equally complex as his harrowing 'The House of Sand and Fog'. This movie is just as engaging and at times, also confusing. Perelman uses fascinating visuals. The film opens with a montage of various beautiful flowers (that have a symbolic definition) and then follows two girls to a highschool bathroom. The shootout scene takes place only within the bathroom while we hear gunfire in the background but for me this movie has achieved in that first sequence what the pretentious 'Elephant' didn't (which was also about a highschool shootout). While the focus is on the two girls, you literally see the fear in their eyes as their 'nice' day is interrupted and their lives are threatened.

On the technical side, it is a very well crafted film. The cinematography, the music, the sets and editing are all top notch. The visuals are detailed and pretty much every frame has something to say.

The ending is different from that of the book but I think both of them rise the same question. What would have you done if you were in Diana's shoes? The question isn't easy to answer because you never actually know unless you are facing such circumstance. That is the test of one's courage. Emil Stern's screenplay is dazzling. The story doesn't follow a linear structure but there's a reason for that. Dialogues are laden with interesting philosophy. Perelman beautifully tackles numerous themes such as friendship, post-traumatic stress, motherhood and abortion among others.

The cast features three powerful performances: by Uma Thurman, Evan Rachel Wood and Eva Amurri. Thurman's portrayal of Diana's complexity, devotion to her family and inability to cope with her past is spot on. Wood and Amurri deliver very natural performances as two girls going through the usual teen problems but dealing with it differently because 'one has what the other doesn't' and that way they help each other. Their on screen friendship is very convincing hinting that they might actually be good friends in real life. Then there's the bathroom scene which could have easily gone wrong had it been played by lesser actresses but this is one of the most powerful scenes in a movie of recent time and one only has to watch it to understand its impact.

'The Life Before Her Eyes' is not an easy film to follow and those who are looking for something simple or light may feel let down but on the other hand it's a very strong movie. Perelman has hit the mark again just like he did with 'The House of Sand and Fog'. He seems to be intrigued by tragic stories and bringing them on screen. He does one hell of a job, again.

No twist necessary

[EXodus25X · 6/10 · 16 September 2008]

This is one of those films that is difficult to review without reviling any key plot points, so I will try my best to not. First off the acting is really good in this film, the original premise of this film is great and even Academy Award material. Instead of taking advantage of this, the director Vadim Perelman tries to be to clever for his own good. Within it's closing minutes the director decides to pull the carpet from underneath the audience, sometimes that works, but in my opinion, not here. Mostly because I liked the direction the film was going, I liked the original idea, a lot, but instead of that we have a forced ending, that has the audience scratching there heads and trying to put it all together. Sure there are times when putting it all together after the film is good, but at the expense of a possibly great film, it's just not worth that. I don't want my comments about the directors decisions to take away from Evan Rachel Wood and Uma Thurman's performances, they were both great and deserving of a much better and emotional final scene. There I think I did it, now you won't know what's coming, you'll just know it's going to be crap when it does.

Emotional story

[hufharted · 7/10 · 30 May 2008]

Never mind the fact that the cast was brilliant, the filming was beautiful and the transitions were flawless. The story itself was so well written. It has been quite a while since I have seen a film that has left such an impact. The cast did such a wonderful job of bringing you into this magnificent story. You leave with the feeling that it just happened to you, and you must immediately phone a friend to tell them about your experience.

The story is very tragic and it surrounds a real life nightmare: school shootings. However, from such a dark place, something brilliant was born...The Life Before Her Eyes.

Thurman makes it good...but not great

[thomvic · 7/10 · 6 June 2011]

I read the synopis for this film and then thought this would be a very interesting film to view. Uma Thurman does a decent job and is convincing as the tormented mother Diana who is getting over a school shooting incident that happened when she was in high school. Even Rachel Wood who plays the younger Diana back in high school is also very good. The film switches (without really any warning) between the two time periods.

The film starts off well and you can be forgiven that this is going to be a melodrama with psychological themes for Diana - and it is essentially. The film doesn't give you straight on the plate what happened back at the shooting and the fact that Diana was a survivor. So you get to know her better when she was younger and how her hopes and dreams and fears were contemplated for her future adulthood and we see in the present day how this has influenced her life.

Up to the halfway point the film is hooking but then it keeps switching back and forth without really giving you time to absorb what has happened in both times. You really are waiting to get down to the point of what really happened back in her high school and keeps making flashbacks to it but then keeps pausing. It can get a bit frustrating and for me personally I just wanted them to get to the point. When it gets there, it is a bit puzzling but once you realise what the film was climaxing to - it is a bit of a cheat (though luckily nothing as horrible as Perfect Stranger's ending).

Thurman gives the performance to watch here and Evan Rachel Wood is equally as good. The cinematography was really good and captured the mood of despair and sorrow the film carries. I don't know why so many critics hated it - it must be because of the constant switching back to try and entice you and ends up frustrating you sometimes and the ending which seems a bit implausible but overall I enjoyed this film and it shows how for some people they can imagine a life they may have in future and not realise how much the present impacts them.

Weak Attempt to Cash in on School Shooting Curiosity

[wastebot · 2/10 · 24 June 2008]

While Rachel is still a young teen herself, ignorant, and gullible, it amazes me that Uma took a film this bad. The story is like something made up for a religious magazine or booklet handout.

In short, had I seen this before Juno, I wouldn't have been so hard on Juno. As bad as Juno is, this is easily one of the worst teen films ever made. It doesn't even offer a soundtrack worth listening to unless you include a brief clip of The Zombies "She's Not There". If only the film wasn't there, my time wouldn't have been wasted.

Besides the simplistic religious preaching at the core of the story, the worst part may be the attempt to cash in on the interest and curiosity about school shootings. The film provides absolutely no insight into them. If anything, it might promote a school, theater, camera, or TV shooting.

A Nutshell Review: The Life Before Her Eyes

[DICK STEEL · 8/10 · 2 January 2011]

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!

A decent but quirky movie with a twist that improves the entirety of the film

[miike7311 · 6/10 · 18 February 2010]

As I was watching this movie, I kept wondering where it was going, but it took to the very end for me to figure out the kicker. The life she is living and with flashbacks to her teenage friendship and school relationships is merely an envisioned life. I life that hasn't and in this case won't happen. It is an ultimate play on that venerable phrase "seeing your life flash before your eyes". In this case the older Diana played by Uma Thurman is that life that flashes before the eyes of the younger Diana played by Evan Rachel Wood in the midst of a high school shooting just before being shot. I thought this revelation made the whole movie that much better and worse at the same time. It effectively desensitized some of the flashbacks to that tragedy and romanticized the rest of her "visualized" life. This was an interesting film only after the turn and rather boring and difficult to watch to get there. The acting was decent, the directing by Vadim Perelman was creative and I look forward to seeing his remake of the classic horror Poltergeist in 2011. Not a movie worth spending a lot of money on, but worth a look if your bored of action or comedy and need a decent if quirky drama.

The Worst Film Ever!!!

[calebcox · 1/10 · 2 July 2008]

This was probably the worst film I have seen all year... I watch movies most days of the week and it is not an understatement. And I see the beauty in most films... so much so that even my girlfriend thinks some of the films I enjoy are dreadful. I love Uma Thurman and have no idea why she would do a film this bad... I watched this film due to the reviews I had seen on this site which were blinding. I can't believe there are so many idiotic reviewers on here and no matter how hard I try, i find it impossible to see what they could have got from this film. absolute drivel. Read the book I'm sure it's probably good but this film is not worth the time. I'd prefer to watch daytime cable television... through a shop window!

excellent

[bill-2020 · 10/10 · 17 April 2008]

The sophisticated Perelman/Kasischke sensibilities will not be for all markets; this is essentially a rather highbrow film, with a surprise ending which will spoil it for some who want their movies to be straightforward, but which is essential to its philosophical heart. Thurman is outstanding as the older, pensive Diana, and Wood perhaps even better as the self-confident, rebellious younger version. Perelman's direction captures the dreamy lyricism contrasting with a sometimes brutal realism that is also found in Kasischke's beautiful and poetic 2002 novel. There won't be many better, genuinely adult movies this year, and most likely it will be ignored.

Strange

[sergelamarche · 6/10 · 27 September 2021]

The film is beautiful, well done but the story is all mental feelings. We get confused as where reality and insanity are. The end is not helping in that regard except maybe confirms an insane state.

Boring, Less Interesting Version Of (spoiler)

[dijitalnomad · 4/10 · 1 December 2010]

Boring, less interesting version (or just a similar film or concept) of the 2005 film "Stay". I really dislike these kinds of overly-ambiguous mysteries that captivate you by keeping you in the dark... to feel as though something -- something -- is just beyond your reach -- while really all the viewer is missing -- is withheld-- is the dumb hook at the end. I think this was a book and I'm sorry if you're a fan but this film is like a bad mix of ... the adaptation of Perfume (in that I can't imagine it translated well), and Sixth Sense. I'll leave Wikipedia to explain the plot if you're seeking more than a vague critique.

I will say the three leading women were gorgeous, and basically what kept me watching.

Needs a second viewing to appreciate it better

[Gordon-11 · 15 July 2008]

This film is about an intertwining story of a teenage girl involved in a college massacre, and her life 15 years later.

When I watched "The Life Before Her Eyes", I did not enjoy it. I thought it was some kind of supernatural thriller but it was not. The young Diana and the grown up Diana were connected too thinly together. I did not see much connection between the two, apart from disconnected scenes such as the name Emma, or the similar behaviour between Emma and the young Diana. Hence, scenes become disjointed mess. The ending was utterly confusing, and I was left to wonder what I had watched for 90 minutes.

After reading about what really happened in the film on the message boards, I started to appreciate the film better. What I thought was thin connection happened for a reason. I can only say that I am not in the mood to play puzzles or to analyse a film in depth. If I watched it another time I might have enjoyed it more.