What gives Lola the ability to have 2 more attempts?

I honestly believe that Lola has the powers of time travel and supersonic screams.

[deleted]

>>>all the attempts where in her head. If you recall at the beginning when she hangs up the phone shes standing in the middle of the room and the camera is spinning around her and shes like "think, who?, think, think" with pics of different people.


That's correct!

And -- if you pay careful attention -- you will notice that the scene which follows is the only scene which is identical in all three versions: her mother talking on the phone with her lover as Lola runs out. So all three versions actually start from this initial moment.

No no NOE you GUYYYS. Here's how it went down: The whole thing is just a dream of a video game inside her head projected onto a television set from someone else's head. Okay, explanation done - close the thread.

People keep talking about the mechanics of the film, and completely ignore the reason that is was used!!! No wonder this movie has such high rating, everyone is easily impressed with such shallow analysis. Don't take me wrong, it's not a bad movie, but 8.0 is easily a stretch. It plays more like a very long Mtv video. Fast cuts are overrated. Stuffing the screen with lots of stuff is not necessarily good. It's well executed in this movie, but I believe it still lacks the caliber of many classics.

This movie is all about causality and chance. The whole butterfly effect yes. So the butterfly effect here is used to show how any small action can change everything, the way it does for all the people that Lola interacts with, and what each person learns from it.

When the movie begins it talks about a football game. Round ball, 90 minutes, the rest is theory. The outcome of the game is completely unpredictable, regardless of strategy or game plans that were thought out before the beginning of the game. So according to that statement, a priori knowledge is just theory and one cannot expect to carry out everything according to plan.

The other thing that's said is how we acquire knowledge after an event (a posteriori). We do it through our the experiences that occur when we act plus external events that can change the course of our lives. She learns something different when she dies than when he dies. When she dies her dying thought is how she loved him so, even risking her life for him, yet being unsure of his feelings and viceversa for the second sequence. When each person dies, they "know" how much they loved the other person.

In the third sequence, as their experiences led them to both getting the money, when she sees him she has a look of disappointment, or I would even say uncertainty, hesitation. They're back to square one because neither learned anything about their relationship through the third sequence of events.

Therefore, knowledge is highly subjective and directly dependent on experiences brought forth by randomness. Knowledge is theory, it's not a fact, it's not a certainty, it is as fickle as the externalities that push us one way or another.

Ok, after writing this analysis I must say that I should give the movie more credit. Any movie that spurs this kind of debate is good in my book. But 8.0? I dunno