Comments on: The Lobster Movie Ending Explained

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 02:38:33 +0000

In reply to greg. There is the 4th option that is that he is lying dead on the bathroom floor having bled to death from gouging his eye's out!

By: Taylor Holmes

Taylor Holmes — Thu, 21 May 2020 17:28:12 +0000

In reply to Wanda. Maybe, but in the past year, something like 100k people have read this post. It's in the top 10 of posts read here. (Killing of a Sacred Deer (by the same director) is number one). So, for some reason, a lot of people are here for some reason or another. But yeah, it's a really really upside down movie. If you don't have your thinking cap on, it's going to just pass you right by.

By: Wanda

Wanda — Thu, 21 May 2020 00:39:36 +0000

The most boring movie I have ever seen. By the time the end came I had punished my own eyes long enough. I felt like gouging out the eyes of everyone who had a part in the making of this slow, dull story.

By: Izzi

Izzi — Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:09:34 +0000

I think he faked it! Told her he blinded himself. Acted like he did, for the rest of his life. And perhaps sat on a Greek patio eating a lobster ;) with his blind wife while listening to the waves behind them in their “normal” life.

Reasoning:

He faked liking the crazy lady. He faked being crazy like the crazy lady. He faked hot being interested in love while with the loners. He faked being in love while with the loners. He faked being best friends with the guy with the lisp. He faked “faking love” while in town as a “couple”. And to compare to faking being blind to love her, which is morbid, he faked being cold hearted while the crazy lady faked choking.

Besides. He whorked so hard to survive human that even if he realized she didn’t love him the same way, that faking a genuine love for her (and faking blinding himself for someone who doesn’t love him the same way) is just one more to add to the already overwhelming high mountain of lies and “faking it” to fit in and survive makes more sense than to throw in the towel.

I think he’s tried too hard to make it that I don’t think he could mutilate himself. It would be too great a obstacle or hinderance since they’re effectively on the run from everyone… Forever. Even short-sightedness would be more useful in blending with your environment and watching out for danger than obviously a two-perosn blindness situation would. He tries his best to make useful or clever decisions on the spot that he seems likely to repeat his farses to continue as unscathed as possible. And poking your eyes out would be scary!

I also agree that both groups know them and neither person has a place to return to if not blending in with “The City” as a couple. Staying together would be with a group that wouldn’t know them yet and they might have a chance at living quietly.

I hope just a bit of this might not have been previously mentioned. Though I know much has been. Just my vote I suppose.

By: Susan Massey

Susan Massey — Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:47:51 +0000

The ending is obvious: He doesn’t do it. Both again are captured and are unable to bond with anyone else. They both choose to become lobsters for a chance at living another 200 years together. There’s your happy ending. (I loved this movie!!!)

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:45:40 +0000

It looked to me like she was faking her blindness at the end – when he left the table with the knife, she looked at the waiter and said thank you after he poored her water, then the looked somewhere else, then looked outside.

By: lobstermint

lobstermint — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:52:37 +0000

I think the ending is left intentionally vague for each individual’s interpretation. There is no right answer.

A couple observations though:

1. If he fled, he can’t choose to be a (single) lobster in the end. After escaping the hotel, etc., he’ll surely be punished if caught and transformed into the least desirable animal (donkey, IMO, though the rabbit argument is compelling).
2. If he did go through with stabbing himself in the eye(s), even if he lived, they’d be caught in the process of him seeking medical care. I don’t think they actually have any “papers” to verify their status as a couple, do they?

Really only the third option gives them any chance of remaining human, as they could ostensibly fake being a couple in the city well enough to avoid being called out on the absent documentation.

So the morals of the story are 1. Being single is no better than being an animal. 2. Being in a couple blinded (literally) by love, forcing your partner to change isn’t any better. 3. Accepting each other despite your differences is the only way to survive, though there’s probably a little deception involved.

By: Eshaan

Eshaan — Sun, 16 Jun 2019 20:09:42 +0000

It think he went for the third option. During the whole movie David is trying to find the middle ground first it’s in his nature . He went asking for bisexual if that was an option and is confused b/w being single or being commited. I think when he finally gets the opportunity to stay in a middle ground why wouldn’t he opt for that

By: Irwan R. Samarif

Irwan R. Samarif — Sat, 20 Apr 2019 03:13:20 +0000

I think… He did it
1. The girl doesnt faking her blindess. It was done by their leader and the doctor confirmed: she’s blind
2. At the end of the scene, black screen showed. It means dark and the only thing blind poeple would see.
3. Sounds of the ocean heard, means that they are living happily together as blind couple. Being a lobster. Since lobsters are mate for life.