Since the OP wants cogent arguments presented to each point, here goes:
Animation is terrible and is just incoherently thrown in the film.
I felt the choppy animation perfectly mirrored the film's adrenaline-rush theme. Also, it was consistently placed at the beginning of Lola's run in all three sequences, so no, it wasn't "incoherently thrown in" there. There was an obvious pattern.
Chick is ugly and wears ugly clothes.
Irrelevant appeal that has no basis in whether the film "sucks" (or not). Personally, I liked Franka Potente's appearance and found that her look made her character far more believable. I also appreciated the fact that she wasn't yet another Hollywood Barbie-clone. She looked like a real person, albeit one with rather eccentric tastes in fashion. But that's what many young people do; experiment with their appearance till they land on a look that lasts.
She screams at parts for really no reason or added element to the movie.
It certainly made a difference in the casino sequence. Given the pent-up anxiety and frustration she's feeling, screaming doesn't seem so out of the question.
Transportation, the fact that such inventions exist and she doesn't use them. (she even could have asked for a ride at one point)
Transportation costs money, which she obviously does not have. Also, she had a moped which was stolen. And in the third scenario, she does hop a ride with the ambulance.
She doesn't get tired from running.
Yes, she does. She is shown sweating and winded, but adrenaline and anxiety push her to keep going.
She is in a huge hurry but will stop to have a vague conversation that takes longer than her running.
You mean with her father? She was begging her father for money. That wasn't exactly a "vague" conversation. Others don't realize the extreme circumstances that have brought her there, so they interrupt Lola with their trivial comments and observations, and you clearly see her frustration at having to focus on anything but the matter at hand. I found that very believable.
The dialogue in the movie is terrible. The Plot is terrible. The Premise is terrible.
Saying they're terrible doesn't make them terrible. And, as with your comments on Lola's appearance, it just goes to show how subjective that opinion is. I found all three highly engaging.
Telephones, the fact that such inventions exist. (she can't call her dad?)
Well, telephones are obviously part of her world, as Manni delivers the bad news to her via phone. But I think she felt that she had to appeal to her father in-person; if she had asked him over the phone, it would have been too easy for him to brush her off, not realizing the seriousness of the situation. Plus, she needed to be there to get the money, then take it to Manni. She only had 20 minutes, so I think she felt she was using her time as efficiently as she possibly could, given the circumstances.
Random flashbacks with the polaroids that have nothing to do with the plot.
I take it you failed to recognize the people Lola encountered, and the progression their lives took (represented in the snapshots) after crossing paths with her, which was the underpinning of the film's entire premise?
She bets $100? and wins $3,700 dollars, then bets that and wins $100,000. (Doesn't make sense. Even if it was multiplying by 37 it would be $136,900) PS- The odds of this are ridiculous.
Obviously you were expecting a documentary? The odds of James Bond winning with a straight flush in "Casino Royale" were fairly ridiculous too, but one learns to suspend disbelief in storytelling. As with Bond films, there is a certain element of fantasy and whimsy to "Run Lola Run" . . . and that's a big part of its appeal.
The fact that she has 20 minutes to run somewhere, argue with people, get 100,000$, run back. Who the hell is going to give this crack whore any money?
The father . . . if he loves her (as she discovers, he doesn't). The bank . . . if she robs it (which she does). And the casino . . . if she wins it (which she does). What she looks like has nothing to do with any of those scenarios.
And the most retarded thing of all -Guy gives the bum a gun at the end? Wtf
For better or worse, Manni decided to trust the bum. After all, the bum returned the money, then asked for the gun. Manni felt it was the least he could do . . . even though it was irrational, not completely thought out and would probably lead to no good. But those were the kind of decisions Manni made throughout the film, so it was consistent for his character.
reply
share