Even though it is just a matter open for interpretation, which do you think is the real ending and/or which ending did you like the best?
My favourite ending was the last one (i'm a sucker for happy endings), but i think the real ending was the first one where Lola dies and in her mind she imagines two other outcomes that could have happened.
I am the real Dread Pirate Roberts.
I was under the impression that the movie's conception of time didn't allow for it to have a real ending. It shows what could have happened in each scenario
shareNone of the endings are imaginary because they take place one after the other, but the third ending can be considered the real ending. It doesn't make sense for Lola to imagine a scenario where Manni gets killed.
Through sheer willpower and love for each other, Lola and Manni are able to deny their own deaths and thereby change reality itself.
Alternatively, this movie takes place in a reality similar to a video game, which explains Lola never needing to rest and her colorful appearance. The video game theory doesn't explain why Lola received divine assistance in the third run.
"divine assistance in the third run"
there are many ways to interpret this film.. that's part of what makes it such a good movie..
having said that, if you are taking the "video game reality" viewpoint, then it makes sense why in the third act Lola gets lucky and everything turns out good for her and Manni..
the player playing the game finally uses CHEATS!
..just one more way to view this film..
Let me borrows Juan's quote
'why do you have to analyse everything to its last molecule till you squeeze every inch of beauty from it'.
i enjoyed every bit of the movie. i wouldn't have minded if lola went for another three more rounds of time reversal. kinda like groundhog day. and time machine. but i like lola rennt better than time machine
/\God dont play dice/\
[deleted]
Your right - the real ending was the first and the rest was imagination. There are a lot of movies made in this genre of events mixed with hallucination / imagination / or what if , what i would call a rubber reality. The granddaddy of this genre was Jacobs Ladder.
have a look at this thread to see similar rubber reality movies.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371257/board/flat/108408701
even monkeys fall from trees
Why are you saying that he/she's right that the real ending was the first and the rest was imagination? Like some other people have said, there isn't one right interpretation. But like some others have also said, the director's commentary on the DVD suggests that ALL endings did happen. Have you read the posts in this thread. You can't say something is right, because YOU think it is right. And that there are a lot of movies that mix events with hallucination doesn't mean this movie does. At least bring up some arguments to support your claim.
shareIm sorry Straego, what i meant was that i THINK the thread starter is right. Others like remcofield and zjm have given reasons and i didnt want to add to whats written before.
Rubber Reality is not reality, but the third ending was not only unreal but downright stupid to be accepted. The odds of winning that way in the casino were statistically impossible. I mean, if i were to accept the third as the real ending, i may as well watch Cindrella then, at least Cindrella has no pretences.
And it cant be one movie, the three parts are different. The movie is either like the movie Butterfly effect, where the Director tries to show how one different move can change the final outcome dramatically, or its a take on Jacobs Ladder.
i ( chose to ) believe the third ending because its got more feeling, depth and emotion. Why dont you watch Stay, Jacobs Ladder, The life before her eyes. You might enjoy thise movies and look at Run Lola Run differently then.
even monkeys fall from trees
Why do you assume I haven't watch these movies you mentioned or that I'm some movie layman who can only interpret movies one way? It doesn't matter, because it doesn't mean Lola Rennt is like those movies.
I will admit that after the first time I saw this movie I thought the director tried to show us three possible outcomes, but after seeing the movie multiple times I've changed my interpretation.
I don't think you've really read the other posts in this thread. You say it can't be one movie. Yes, it can. Comparisons have been made with a video game. Something goes wrong, you die and you start over again. That's what happens, in my opinion, in this movie. Lola gets another chance, each time learning something till she gets it right. Some say it's Lola's and Manni's love for eachother that's able to change reality. And while that isn't really realistic, a lot of things in this movie aren't realistic. Did she really turn into a cartoon when going down the stairs? This movie is supernatural or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't try to be realistic. And if the other endings are her imagination why would she imagine what happens to other people or Manni dying or why would she imagine two different endings anyway. If the director really wanted to suggest the other endings were just imagination I really think he would have shown it in a more obvious way, with only one different ending, Manni not dying, her being more succesful in obtaining the money or even more absurd situations than winning at the casino. If you can accept that Lola can deny her own death, you can also accept that she wins at the casino by screaming. There are different clues in the movie that Lola (subconsciously) remembers things that happened earlier in the movie and is reliving the events. It's comparable to the movie Groundhog Day.
But ofcourse, this is only MY opinion.
Now Stratego, I’ll tell you why I think you are wrong. We are talking about unrealistic themes based on imagination ( which is an accepted fantasy ) versus unrealistic themes based on stupidity ( which should not be accepted )
First scenario - If Lola died and hallucinated – then its an acceptable fantasy…………….. In Jacobs ladder, Stay or the TLBHE the fantasy was the creation of a human beings dying thoughts. I would not like to stop at it as a fantasy, I would add that this is a beautiful, heart warming, emotional concept, woven around the study of Near death experiences people have had.
Second Scenario - But if Lola did not die – then its stupidity. How can the same movie continue in this manner. If it’s a movie game when you die and start over, you might as well watch Cindrella. What do you mean when you say that ‘you can accept that Lola denied her own death’
Third Scenario – Earlier Drooch has said – ‘…. the protagonist relives the same moment, growing in wisdom each time until they finally reach enlightenment, where they find peace.’ Another has said – ‘the director meant for each scenario to have actually happened and for each to be instilled in Lola's subconscious’ Another says – ‘The having to redo the task over and over, learning new helpful things along the way which further her changes to accomplishing it’
I’m sorry I think this is all wrong. Because in the third scenario of Chaos Theory at least a fantasy scenario should be made. Lola died, then HOW AND WHY did she suddenly come back to life and ‘lived the same moment and reached enlightenment ?’ Remember – what others are saying can be applied to The Butterfly Effect because a fantasy scenario was well crafted in this movie
Fourth Scenario – 3 different movies. Ok then we say it’s a collection of 3 movies like Clash or Babel or Magonia, only in RLR the three movies are woven around the same character and basic storyline. But this has no emotional feeling so all put together I looked at the first scenario. Maybe I’m wrong.
even monkeys fall from trees
Well, that's all very nice, but you misunderstood me. I was not planning on discussing the interpretation of this movie with you. Like I said, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion since this movie doesn't offer an obvious explanation. You denied me and many others our opinion by saying it simply wasn't possible and it was to that I reacted in my second post and tried to defend it. The reason I replied in the first place was that you misled the OP by claiming your and his/her interpretation was 'right', therefor implying you had some inside knowledge everybody else here on this board does not have. There's no reason to be demeaning and act like a movie buff. If you had been the director I would not have doubted you for a second, but you're not, so your opinion is just as (un)important as the rest in this thread.
By the way, the second and third scenario you described are basically the same. I didn't mean it IS a video game, I said it is LIKE a videogame.
"But if Lola did not die – then its stupidity. How can the same movie continue in this manner. If it’s a movie game when you die and start over, you might as well watch Cindrella."
Yeah really, that's a VERY good argument, because YOU think it's stupid.
well, I explained it already some years ago:
Lola gets other attempts to save Manni
because she declares the outcomes of the first two tries
(that did happen)
for FORBIDDEN out of concept of own WILL POWER!
And yes, this concept defies logic.
But, it doesn't need it,
because the film maintains that LOVE defies LOGIC !
At that point this film is sort of otherworldly and not ashamed
to admit it.
Hard to understand?
There is a poem by the german humorist Christian Morgenstern,
("Die unmögliche Tatsache", one of the several Palmström poems)
where he makes fun of the forbiddance-o-phile germans
and he writes a line that goes like this:
... Und er kommt zu dem Ergebnis:
"Nur ein Traum war das Erlebnis. Weil",
so schließt er messerscharf,
"nicht sein KANN, was nicht sein DARF.
And he comes to the conclusion:
His mishap was an illusion,
for, he reasons pointedly,
that which MUST not, CAN not be!
Hey, you don't have to tell this to me, I agree with you. It's mira943 who finds it hard to grasp this concept.
shareHe also must not have remembered the opening in which the security guard says something like: The ball is round. The game lasts ninety minutes. Everything else is theory. And then he kicks the ball into the air.
[deleted]
It's a movie. What happens doesn't have to be realistic. Do we argue that superhero movies like Spiderman are all just a dream because the idea that a man bit by a spider gains superpowers is too unrealistic? No. Because it's a movie. This movie was over the top from the beginning, I don't know why anyone would take it so seriously or feel like its outcome needs to be realistic.
Voting Hist.http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=26598711
well,the first two segment didnt actually happen. After talking with Manni,Lola starts to think what she could do.At first, she thinks she will do this but that doesnt end well,she sees herself dying as a result of her actions.So she again starts to imagine,this time, at the end,Manni dies.At this point she actually goes out and start to run, remembering and avoiding certain things, and at last she succeeds.
But anyway,this is just my interpretation of the movie. There were no hint of any supernatural power or parallel universe in this movie. These things actually happens in our life, when in trouble we try and visualize our actions to be successful in our attempt.I think this is the case here
"One bastard goes in, another comes out"
The real ending is the beginning, but with better understanding. Did you forget the prologue?
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
I think it's the 3d one because the credits play Backwards.
Plus, the first two didn't happen because Lola doesn't know how to use a gun.
follow me on twitter: @JuliannaBastos
IMO is the last one, the other are just her imagination...
Prostitute: What the *beep* are you doing?
Johnny: I'm gonna kill a bunch of people.
There's no real ending.
share