MovieChat Forums > Rinne (2006) Discussion > Please explain the ending?

Please explain the ending?

posted 17 years ago by rburg_55
33 replies | jump to latest

Could someone please explain the ending to me. Thanks!

All the people that got killed in the beginning were reincarnations of all the people murdered in the hotel for the professor's experiment on reincarnation.

Throughout the movie, we are led to believe that Nagisa is the reincarnation of Chisato (the little girl) but is revealed to be the reincarnation of the murderer. Kinoshita (the college student with the "Vanilla Fudge" t-shirt) is the real reincarnation of Chisato. The director of the movie was the reincarnation of Yuya (the little boy).

Then all the reincarnations shift into their past life and try to exact their revenge on Nagisa. She escapes.

However, this all corresponds to what's happening on the murderer's video made 20-30 years prior that Nagisa's agent is watching.

When it comes time for Nagisa to kill herself, Chisato/Chisato's doll stops her from doing it, breaking the cycle of reincarnation ("Together Forever")

We then watch what supposedly REALLY happened: that Nagisa suffered a mental breakdown while filming the scene. However, the professor's wife (the old lady) sees the ghosts of her dead children in the background.

She visits Nagisa at an insane asylum and drops off Yuya's rubber ball and Chisato's doll in her room. However, Nagisa sees this as containing the spirits of said children.

She freaks out for a long time but suddenly stops, smiling. Perhaps the "professor/murderer" side of her has taken over...

Hope this explains a lot!

[–] zillion29 17 years ago

Wow. Do you know what the sad thing is? Your synopsis makes the movie sound ten times more interesting than it actually was. Seriously, I wish I had saved 96 minutes of my life and just read your explanation. I'm not being sarcastic or trite - that was a very good post!

[–] CaptainThunderwear 17 years ago

Yeah, I just saw it an liked it, but your response gives a whole lot more insight on what I took from the film compared to you.

[–] musicmime17 17 years ago

Yeah I definitely liked this movie a lot, and your synopsis cleared things up even though I thought I had it pretty down pat. I closed my eyes for the doll part because it freaked me out so badly, and so I didn't get that little blurb of action thanks for the clarification

[–] lmariexxx 17 years ago

what was the experiment?? It seemed like they were a normal family on vacation or something and then all the sudden there in the bathroom looking scared and then mom walks in a freaks out. and dads kifeing everybody, what was he doing, I only saw this one was I suppose to watch those other two to understand why the dad went nuts?
Lisamarie

[–] lizzyn2002 17 years ago

sorry to be an idiot but...

the whole reincarnation cycle still doesnt make sense to me. reincarnation means that no matter what you come back as, at SOME point you'll just die in the same way as before, even though nobody actually stabs you this time? i guess my question is what "triggered" this reinactment thing? the movie riled up the old spirits or something?

also, was the reinactment real? its implied at the end that the girl just lost her mind. but there were real characters that were supposedly killed. so what happened to the director and the two girls?

"However, this all corresponds to what's happening on the murderer's video made 20-30 years prior that Nagisa's agent is watching"

could you explain that a little more please?

"She visits Nagisa at an insane asylum and drops off Yuya's rubber ball and Chisato's doll in her room. However, Nagisa sees this as containing the spirits of said children."

wait. i thought the spirits of the kids WERE in the room, and the mama was like giving the kids back their old toys?

my thought was she started smiling cuz the professor did indeed take over, and was like happy cuz his experiment worked or something.

i would love any feedback. i really liked this movie, but it left me confused. im not used to japanese-style horror, plus my tv is so tiny i had to REALLY focus to read the subtitles, and i think i missed a lot of the action. Thanks!

[–] i_am_god-no_u 17 years ago

To lizzyn2002:

You could compare the ending to Pan's Labyrinth and When A Stranger Calls where during the end you're left with doubt that it actually happened. Either everything that happened prior was just a hallucination or real. I guess that directed wanted the ending to be whatever you thought it was.

[–] pacoreguenga 16 years ago

To understand the ending properly, we must read about Asian beliefs on souls, spirits and ghosts. There is the ntion of the eternal soul which reincarnates several times until perfection so it can go to the next level. There are also good spirits on everything which help the living on their daily duties, they power up all the nice things in this world, like the rain, the wind, the fire, etc. They are sorts of little gods and people thank them for their help. There are also the ghosts, which are formed from dramatic events such as murderings. They keep on haunting until avenged, and tend to be agressive. You can find a lot more info on the net.

[–] callmechia 16 years ago

YES! I totally was wondering what happened to the director!!
How come, in Nagisa's "vision" aka the murderer's film, the director becomes the boy? I mean, what happens to the director in real time?
He didn't go into some kind of "mental breakdown", like she did, nor did he randomly die like Yuka and the other reincarnates.
In fact, don't we see him blanketing Nagisa and calling the ambulance during her "mental breakdown" at the film screening? Like wtf! Did he die or what?
That part is soo unresolved it really pissed me off!
And the doll? Don't even get me started on the doll.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 13 years ago

I didn't get that either, what happened to the director & every other reincarnated person? Did they die? Were they really reincarnated? Or was it all in Nagisa's head & she was the only 1 reincarnated?

OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news

[–] lvas-206-321358 12 years ago

I think the reason the father murdered everyone to try and 'reincarnate' them all is part of a control issue. People who suffer from mental problems often share the problem that they cannot control their environments, be it from schizophrenia, bulimia and the more common ones, like OCD. He was clearly fanatical about exploring the truth behind life, death, and the afterlife. His obsession led to his insanity and desperation to re-inact his 'experiment' in murder.

I think there is a significant tie-in to this that the father videoed all the deaths, like a director of 'spirit' - a director controls the entire pace of a film and everything that is co-ordinated in it. In this way, the father can control life and death because he chooses who lives, and who dies, and exactly how they die.

Perhaps they were able to be reincarnated through the very act of him filming them, as their deaths and were permanently captured, which is always the purpose of photographing/filming - my idea is that he was trying to find a method of //preservation//

In preserving their deaths in a violent and sadistic manner, those spirits could have been reincarnated through the traditional idea that unhappy souls come back to relive or redo their mistakes, or wrongdoing done to them.

However, the mystery is - why then did these souls come directly back to the same place, like lambs to the slaughter, when they were going to be killed again? It's as if it was completely out of their control; although reincarnated, these people are yet again pawns for the professor to kill as he wishes.

My only clue as to the ending is the girl's smile, at the very end of the film - her smile, and seeing the ghosts of the professor's children, shows that he succeeded. Everyone came back again, everyone was murdered again - except for him, in Nagisa's body, where I'm sure if she wasn't incapacitated by the asylum she would have killed herself to make the cycle begin again. The ghosts of the children do not even scare, haunt or terrorise Nagisa/their father; they merely appear, and wait, with installed obedience. This also made me think that the professor wanted to control their spirits, to make them be with him always.

The only idea I can come up with from this film that the professor - whilst insane - was perhaps struggling with his idea of 'self', the 'proof of life'. For humans, there is no real proof of life after death or the ideas of a soul, and this is what the professor set out to achieve. In his sordid and miserable way, he succeeded.

Another, very good, very confusing horror film about this is a french film called 'Martyrs'. But be warned, it is VERY gruesome, and most definitely not for the faint-hearted. I would even say it's more sadistic than this film.

Sorry it's so long, those are my ideas D:

[–] nikki_elizabeth 16 years ago

Thanks! I think I got most of it, but this helped to clear a lot of things up. Thanks for your great post!

[–] elongmire 15 years ago

Fantastic explanation.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] michaelwaller 17 years ago

One of the deleted scenes explains the whole smiling bit at the end. In the scene after Nagisa Sugiura is in the padded room and sees the "ghosts" of the professor's two children, Nagisa remembers a happy scene of the professor and the two children playing on a beach. It seems the previous life had taken complete control over Nagisa.

It is unclear in the movie if Nagisa just went crazy because of all of the memories of the murders committed by the professor or if she was actually haunted (maybe in a mental way) by the actual ghosts and reincarnated souls of the murder victims though other scenes in the movie lead to the latter assumption.

[–] webbgeo 17 years ago

So, do you think the mother of the children KNEW that Yuka was a reincarnation of the professor? Because that seems a little twisted that she put the dolls in there, at least to me, and adds an element of "something worse than death" that the director was hinting at throughout the movie. Any opinions?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] angelofdarkness824 16 years ago

You got the names wrong I think. Yuka was the reincarnate of the little girl and it's actually Nagisa that was the reincarnate of the professor.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gingersnap444 16 years ago

Reverend Kane could have been referring to the actress who played Nagisa... her name in real life is Yuka.

[–] gingersnap444 16 years ago

In response to Webbgeo:

I think the mother totally knew that Nagisa, Yuka's character, was the reincarnation of the professor. I would have to see the movie over again all the way from the beginning, but my guess is that the director and the mother both knew on some level although perhaps she wasn't entirely sure until she saw her children while watching the dailies.

What I would be more curious about is how the director knew that Nagisa was the professor. Had he and the mother been in communication or was it just intuition.

[–] triphopfantasy 16 years ago

I think he recognized her on a sub-conscious level, going by the way he looked at her during the auditions. She even mentioned it later to her agent when she said "the director glared at me" - I think the boy in him was recognizing the professor in her.

[–] daudleikr 16 years ago

"How come, in Nagisa's "vision" aka the murderer's film, the director becomes the boy? I mean, what happens to the director in real time?"

The director is the reincarnation of the young boy. It's been a while since I've seen it, but isn't it so that all the murders happened -during- the shoot? While Nagisa was having her fit?
Yuka was taken from the library before that, but she didn't actually die until they were shooting - while Kinoshita (ms. Vanilla fudge) is re-living the incident in the hotel. In that part, all the people who were reincarnations of the people who actually died there - are 'kidnapped' and brought to that hotel, and then they die like they did the first time.
Nagisa is brought to this dimension while she's having the fit, to also re-live the incident.

If all that -really- happened is up to the individual viewers i suppose.

"He didn't go into some kind of "mental breakdown", like she did, nor did he randomly die like Yuka and the other reincarnates."

They didn't randomly die. They died the way they died the first time. I honestly thought it was going to be about cosmic repeat.
Also, Kinoshita didn't go in to a "mental breakdown" either, but she still re-lived the incident... or did she.. etc.

"And the doll? Don't even get me started on the doll."

What about the doll? I don't see any problems with it. o.o

The only things that puzzles me is how there could be ghosts when the spirit had been reincarnated, and the thing at the end with the kids. Are they there, are they not there, does his wife know, etc.
Judging from her smirk, I thought she was after revenge: "I'll stick you with your children, you dirty old bastard, so you'll become more insane!", but maybe she was trying to show him that his theories were correct.
Gahh i don't know.
It's just one of those movies that never will make any sense, cos maybe it's not supposed to. Let's just let it go and move on. :D

[–] nathy85 16 years ago

What i don't understand is why the film crew, some other people and the old woman are watching a screening of an unfinished film where the girl is having a breakdown. Also, after everyone died including the director in the previous scene why would they continue shooting the film. This makes no sense to me.

someone please explain this.
Cheers

[–] beckapoe 16 years ago

I would also like to know that. Why in the hell were they watching the unfinished film on big screen, seeing her having a breakdown?
It didn't make sense did it.

Watch my videos:
http://www.youtube.com/ChristinaRicciLover

[–] Phroggy 16 years ago

…I guss it all falls into horror movie trappings. After all — and that's one of the things that always irks me — why do ghosts would appear out of frame, where the token character can't see them ? If only for the spectator's sake. Same with the puppet before the credits.
Besides, the main protagonists seems a bit passive, innit ? She seems to accept her visions and do bugger-all about it expect act doe-eyed… Until the big Ringu-esque finale.
But the reat point, as one mentioned in reference to Asian cukture, is that people don't spend half of the running time wondering whether there are such things as ghosts, yada yaffa… No, they just accept it as natural !

[–] mlissa-1 16 years ago

I think the director had to explain to his investors and other interested parties why the film would not be finished.

[–] pamheath 15 years ago

I'm thinking the mother saw the children in the unfinished screening and confirmed what she was suspicious of all along that this woman was the reincarnation of her husband the murderer. What I made the smiling mean at the end was that at one point I think it was the mother (??) who mentioned she used to think the professor was just plain crazy but after reading his journal she realized he was actually performing a well thought out experiment and that on some warped level he actually loved his children and wanted to be with them forever and wanted to prove that he would by having them reincarnate along with him. Somehow murdering them would create the catalyst for them to be always reincarnating together, perhaps due to the violent nature of their deaths and the fact that he initiated their deaths. The other killings were collateral damage. He wanted to kill his children and set in motion the events that would cause them to be together forever. First, at the end, she freaks out when she sees them, but then smiles as she realizes that he (the professor killer) obtained his goal. They will always be together. He (she) smiles - satisfied he proved his theory. The mother put the doll and the ball in the cell because she finally realizes that this is what he was out to obtain and though they are dead, they are with their father for better or worse - forever. I thought it was a very well done film. Creepy and very scary. I made the mistake of watching it late one night with the lights off. I had to get up at one point and turn the lights on. Too much! hehe

[–] mrprovolone 14 years ago

this actualy makes the most sense about the professer smiling at the end but i still want to know did everyone die at the hotel or not? and what were they doin watching the video at the end any way?

[–] ckree8 15 years ago

I really think that the mother of the children was putting the toys into the room with the girl because she wants the children to continue to haunt what she now believes to be her husbands reincarnation for them to be with "him" forever..maybe to torment him? or to let them be together forever as the doll and little girl say idk

[–] CountOroku01 13 years ago

Well, I forgot to say that despite the theme, the movie is full of plotholes.

[–] Steamboy 13 years ago

That movie was awesome, just see how much you have to say and ask about it! Only good movies like this boggle the mind so much. Coming up, spoilers.

1. What happened to the director?
We don't know, but he's nowhere to be seen during the projection. Something might have happened to him, maybe he froze during the shot and then collapsed and died/fainted (his death as a kid was not instantenous). Anyway, even if something happened to him, they had time to finish the shot, he wasn't the one at the camera. So I don't think this is an issue.

2. Why are they watching an unfinished film?
Like someone mentioned, some of the people in the room look like investors/producers. Perhaps they want to see what's been shot, what part of the footage is usable or just want to know what happened. I don't think it's odd. If you have footage like this, you're going to want to watch it, don't you think?

3. What triggered the reenactment?
It was a particularly horrible crime. 11 people killed by 1 man, including his wife and two children. Death of children are usually a good trigger for horror stories (think The Shining, which Rinne is quite a tribute to, but also Ring, The Changeling, etc). Also, that man, the professor, might have been versed in occult sciences. His notebook seemed quite peculiar.

The ghosts of their past lives wanted to exert revenge; that was the trigger. But one VERY important clue was also given before the professor killed himself, when he watches his reflection in the blade and sees the eyes of Nagisa. Surely there was a reason for that. The only one that come to mind is that he had prepared his reincarnation (remember the "body is just a vessel"). Perhaps that's why the dead wanted to get him, not just for sheer revenge but because he had "escaped" rather than really died.

4. Does the old woman know?
Clearly she does! She sees the ghost of her children in the movie. She figured what's happening. She brings the toys to haunt him forever.

5. Connection between the director and Nagisa
The director didn't know that Nagisa is the professor, but he felt drawn to her in some unexplainable ways. That's why he couldn't take his eyes off her during the audition. He knew she had to be in this. And that is another very important point: Nagisa was dragged into the movie. She was selected by the director, was reluctant to go to the hotel but went anyway. None of these were clear conscious choices, as their outcome was bad for the professor.

6. The only problem...
I think the only problem are the scene where Yuka and others are kidnapped by the spirits. That was much more typical j-horror than the rest of the film and makes it difficult to justify logically what happens afterwards because the "it's happening mostly in her head" doesn't hold true; Nagisa and the director should have been brought physically to the hotel too in that case.

Oh, and the final smile looked so much like a tribute to Psycho. And what does that smile tell? "I'm not just insane, I'm evil"

__________________________
1up-games.com Last watched: imdb.to/q5okvG

[–] pundit-1 12 years ago

I personally thought that Nagisa was the little girl who was killed by her berserk dad, that is in the previous life.
As opposed to her being the reincarnation of the mad professor (berserk dad) who killed the 11 people at the hotel.

As for the ending in which she is wearing a strait jacket in a sanatorium
I thought that was part of the film in which she was starring.
When watching this I really couldn't tell at certain points whether or not
it was part of the movie that she was in or something outside of it.
I think the purpose behind this story was to blur the distinction to where
you couldn't tell if she was acting in the movie or experiencing a genuine
case of horror.

This is definitely more a thinking man's horror film.

Why did the chicken cross the road?
Answer: To get away from Col.Sanders.

H.L.