What's the point of this film? - Banlieue 13: Ultimatum (2009) Discussion

[–] IC_Gwame 15 years ago

Originally, B13 would've been rebuilt for the wealthy to inhabit, but now the original population will be moved back in.

reply

[–] dimagic 15 years ago

Originally, B13 would've been rebuilt for the wealthy to inhabit, but now the original population will be moved back in.

Not exactly. No one guarantees that this is what will happen. A promise from the scared, sweating and humiliated president is not really trustworthy.
Eventually the company that paid the money for district's destruction got what they wanted - the population is out and the buildings are down.

They tried to stop the bombing because they wanted to keep the district the same as before, then suddenly they suggest destroying everything to build it again from the scratch? Why? They liked to be separated, now they suddenly want be part of society?
It's not like there is no point, it's just that the point is exactly the opposite from what they show in the film.

reply

[–] aquaphx 15 years ago

yeah this is the biggest weakness of the movie in my opinion, it have pretty good action but the story kinda lame and boring. perhaps they should make it a gang war between the chinese, african, mexican, etc.

reply

[–] foxx_1 15 years ago

The point of the movie is to see a lot of kickass pointless action - and something to fill the gaps between the fights. Action movies are not supposed to be brain teasers and this one goes to the extreme. It lookes like one of those Mortal Combat movies, especially the part where the slim Asian girl (Tao?) who looks like a model beat up all the beefy thugs in no time *LOL*

BTW, I found that politically correct ending total crap - France really has a big problem with some predominantly muslim suburbs and it is not really appropriate to make an action flick ot of this...

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DJ_DEVASTATION 15 years ago

Well, it was pretty much guaranteed that some *beep* moron would ask a dumb question like that.

reply

[–] truetron 15 years ago

Point is, great Actionmovies can also be made outside US!

Dig that! ;)

reply

[–] philipknowles1 15 years ago

The difference is that the DISS were going to blow up those towers knowing full well that the were still full of people (they were only fully evacuted when the 5 gangs started moving people out).

At the end of the first film they are told that improvements will come to D13 but it never happened. We are meant to belive that they will this time because this time a shocked president sees how close he came to being tricked into killing many people. He also sees that it is the "scum" from the district that have come together to stop this plot. And they do so (mostly) without guns or the need to kill anyone. He puts Damien in charge of overseeing the redevelopment, knowing that he is a good and dedicated man. The hard-drive they took showed that the big company that wanted control of D13 had conspired in the murder of the cops and the plan to kill many more in the demolition of the towers. They would struggle to get their hands on anything but a long jail sentence.

In the real world the president would probably back track on his promise, Damien would be moved to another position and the big company would weasle their way out of trouble. Either that or another company would try and pick up were they left off.

But this is a big action film. What happens in the real world has no place in big action films, or they would cease to big action films. People were beaten up, rooftops were leapt and cars were smashed. Job done.

reply

[–] DancingOmelette 14 years ago

The difference is that the DISS were going to blow up those towers knowing full well that the were still full of people (they were only fully evacuted when the 5 gangs started moving people out).

Yeah, but the buildings were already empty at the point when Gassman was forcing the president to press the buttons at gunpoint - why didn't they just let him instead of risking the prez's life, just to do the same thing he was about to anyway?

What's more, the people that the towers were full of were scumbags - the scumbags Leito didn't like having in his neighbourhood in the first movie, but was suddenly determined to protect in this one. Are we supposed to believe that these criminals will be chillin' out, maxin', relaxin' all cool when the government builds them a nice new district? They'll stop trading in drugs and guns then?

And what was up with the white power nazi guy being all friends n family with the other races?

It was a cool action movie but the plot really made no sense, so District 13 remains firmly my favourite.

reply

[–] philipknowles1 14 years ago

Fair point about the gunpoint/empty buildings thing. And also about the gangs going back to crime. I did think when I was watching it that they had all just done themselves out of their own money-making scemes. I suppose it goes into the movie world/real world thing. In the movie they make a fresh start, in reality they would just start up more criminal work.

I'd have to disagree about the towers full of scumbags. There's no doubt the towers were run buy scum but that does not mean all the residents were just as bad. If you find yourself in an area like that you probably don't get much choice about which block you live in. And the fact that Leito does not like the gangs does not necessarily mean he wants them all dead. The world and the movies are both full of people who go after criminals without killing them.

As for the nazi guy, it's most likely the old common enemy thing. Or maybe we're meant to belive that Parkour has the power to cure racism!

There's always going to be plot holes in these kind of films. That's inevitable. I still enjoyed it but I agree the first one was better.

reply

[–] hathor008 14 years ago

...of course in the real world nobody demolishes buildings by shooting missiles from airplanes. But nobody complained about that, LOL.

---
Jesus wasn't a homophobe.

reply

[–] ScreamQueen2 14 years ago

At the end of the first film they are told that improvements will come to D13 but it never happened. We are meant to belive that they will this time because this time a shocked president sees how close he came to being tricked into killing many people.

This is what Leito has wanted since the first movie. I think that is why it ended the way it did. With Damien in charge, he will make sure the improvements will happen.

Team Edward.
Team Shane Collins.

reply

[–] wavelength121 14 years ago

I thought the screenplay had a very strong "power to the people" message that would have been watered down or sugarcoated had it been made for American audiences. Instead, we got a fast-paced physical-combat action movie where the heroes pause to discuss their political philosophies in between fights. Bad-ass!

reply

[–] midnightorchid 14 years ago

As for why didn't the gangs just let Gassman force the Prez to demolish the buildings;
a) Leito hadn't even brought it up and asked the gang leaders whether they were for or against the idea until AFTER Gassman had been defeated, and
b) Even if they did plan to have the Prez destroy the buildings and have a fresh start before they even swarmed the building, there is still a difference in CHOOSING to let go of the buildings and their old lives, and having some power crazed madman steal it from them.

reply

[–] singe_101 14 years ago

I'm just worried about the horse.

I don't see why they wouldn't let the high rises be destroyed. It's past the point of tenament. In the original, they say the elevators are never working. 20 stories up or more would be grueling without an elevator every day. Did they have working plumbing, or just windows?

That was the only area they said wasn't evacuated, because of snipers.

reply

[–] fox911 12 years ago

very dumb idea to blow up the building at the end. should have ended with president agreeing with them to rebuild the district.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]