Redbelt

I've never rented a DVD that I had to take several attempts to see before. This hero's struggle was so painful to me personally that I had to take several runs at it. I'm a little surprised I made it through. Chiwetel Ejiofor as the main character, Mike Terry, is so perfect for the role it begs the question, Was this guy really just acting? The whole point of this movie, an homage to the purity of a certain sort of warrior spirit, is so unexpectedly plausible that I was taken aback. I thought David Mamet who had been involved in "Spartan", "Heist", "Ronin", and "Wag the Dog" to name a few other movies, was more predictably conventional and commercial.

This movie probably won't make a lot of money but it's a truly beautiful exploration of the potential for nobility in modern life. I kinda doubt whether they plan a sequel as the point has been made and it would take a truly extraordinary script to follow this little tour de force, but if there is one, I wouldn't miss it for the world.

I saw this movie and was very pleasantly surprised. I really liked this movie. Although at first I didn't know why.

After all, the script, as narrative, is full of holes. Big holes. Without going into details, the initial scene with shot fired has been accurately described as full of holes as swiss cheese. Yet this scene is a key part of the movie, referenced again and again. This is not good.

The title, pictures, and promos were all fundamentally misleading. I went expecting a martial arts film. But it turns out to be a drama. If you are looking for martial arts action, you'll come away very, very disappointed. This too is not good.

The final sequence is utterly incredible. This has been pointed out again and again. This is a basic plot failure. And this too is not good.

And yet ... and yet I came away really, really feeling good about this movie I had just seen. Why?

Well, first, if you view the script not as a narrative, but as a sequence of loosely connected scenes designed to evoke one emotion or thought or the other ... like tableaux vivants, or what TS Eliot called objective correlatives ... well, it works. For example, we have a main character stripped of everything in a series of narratively impossible scenes; and yet the emotions involved in "losing everything" are conveyed powerfully and evocatively. Likewise the ending redemptive sequence is narratively incredible; but emotionally very, very satisfying. This is all to the good.

The characters, acting, and characterizations were all excellent. Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mike Terry was superb. And the Mike Terry character is simply a delight, likable, appealing, interesting. Tim Allen was successfully cast against type. Ricky Jay's Marty Brown the sports promoter is utterly slimy and yet I couldn't take my eyes off of him. After every scene, I felt like running to the restroom to wash my hands and face and ears. He is sliminess personified. But all the characters were well drawn whether likable or disgusting. All to the good.

The cinematography and scenes were well drawn and well depicted. There were some really gripping, evocative shots I especially like: such as the Tim Allen character in dark profile. All to the good.

All in all, I'd say if you like emotion and objective correlatives, I think you'll like this movie. Don't go looking for martial arts, and don't go looking for a sound narrative; but if you want good, solid punch, you've come to the right place.

Just when one would expect 'Redbelt' to following a predictable path we are thrown off with a twist. Mamet tells a very layered story and most of the twists make sense. There are a few plot holes and perhaps the film could have used some energy boost. The pacing is arguably a tad slow in the beginning but as the events progress the viewer gets more and more drawn in. Mamet also brilliantly involves jiu-jitsu in the main story (unlike other martial arts film where the art is used merely as a device). The film is about honour (as the principles of Jiu Jitsu goes) and sacrifice but 'Redbelt' refuses to tread the clichéd path where the protagonist forcefully preaches the message to the viewer. The fights are well choreographed. The cinematography could have been better during the fight sequences. Mamet's cast is terrific. Chiwetel Ejiofor is exceptional as the noble and dignified Mike Terry. Terry ain't the clichéd hero. He is deeply passionate about jiu-jitsu but who won't resort to anger or bloodshed to achieve his means. He is willing to help anyone and he will do it through correct measures rather than the quick but 'wrong' way. Max Martini and Alice Braga are good. Emily Mortimer is fabulous. Tim Allen stands out in a small role. 'Redbelt' tells the story of a real(istic) hero who is not willing to give up his integrity or sacrifice his honour at any cost, who truly respects his passion and understands it.

Mamet discovers cinema.

Let's face it, we need as many serious writers as we can get, even pompous mannered ones. But we all know, and now Mamet himself does, that cinematic devices have almost no similarity to theatrical ones. At least in the modern era. His movies have been better radio plays than movies.

Now he decides to get serious and channels as many great cinematic traditions as he can fit in a single film.

We have the Raging Bull, flying eye sort of movie, where the camera engages in the space of the action. Scorcese hardly invented this, but he and Stallone merged it with the fight movie.

We have the Zen visual, where the character is supposed to have some transcendental value and we "see" it in the environment he sheds.

We have the modern fold where you have a public performance that validates your existence; we have the performance fold — usually a sports movie, where the good guy wins, natch; we have the movie which features movie people and the writing of the movie similar to what we see; and we have the notion of the content of the medium fighting the medium itself, here TeeVee.

Mamet chooses to use all three of the big strokes and all three of the folds. It seems a bit desperate.

I think you might be better off watching Raging Bull with Ghost Dog.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I believe David Mamet did a great job with this film. He managed to show a true art and soul of a real martial artist. This film is not about training, action and competition. It is more about a life of a man who has to challenge his own ideals and manage the turmoil that he is going through. This film is also refreshing due to its Brazilian touch. :-) Casting is great with only one exception - Rodrigo Santoro: I personally don't think he was the right choice for the role he played. Maybe he wasn't "dangerous" enough, don't know, but just didn't fit in right. Otherwise the script is well written and message delivered.

May not be the greatest movie, but definitely deserves to be watched.