Here is a different view:

"The film concerns Chiwetel Ejiofor in a performance full of reality and layers made all the more impressive by the fact that it was under the scrutiny of Mamet's notoriously exacting script and direction. Ejiofor plays a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu instructor who teaches his students the expertise to defend themselves against the unplanned threats of reality, rather than triumph in regulated contact sports. He runs a storefront studio on an inhospitable-looking city street. His is not one of those paste jewelry fitness bazaars and outlets, but a throwback to a past era. A succession of creatively minute situations carries him into acquaintance with a popular movie action hero played by Tim Allen of all people, and actually quite well, and a band of Hollywood wielders of power and influence, predominantly amassed from Mamet's stock troupe of actors whose mere being there defines the embodiment of the atmosphere of a Mamet film. Ejiofor soon finds himself in a situation out of his control and pressed to enter the ring against his principles.

David Mamet's films are not for everyone. That is, they are, but not everyone is ready to submit his plain-faced film-making. Despite what anyone may think of his stilted, surrealistic dialogue, that which is his trademark, his work as a director is not the slightest bit short of sincere. Many directors superior to him are not even as objective and sincere as he is in telling a story on film. Redbelt is an incredibly enthralling capsule of a little-known yet very enlightening philosophy. And when the film's hero, an evolved blend of maverick, defensive and perfectionist, is faced with a seemingly inescapable situation, he buckles. The most thought-provoking and riveting moment is the final one. However, the film does not "follow" Ejiofor. If Mamet did, the film would be very different. The camera would be more self- conscious because of his preoccupation with shooting from the most interesting place or making a unique shot out of a plain one, or the most interesting way that he can allow Ejiofor to convey a gesture or facial expression. This, however, is the way most modern films are made, including many of the greatest ones. Mamet, whose mainstay is theater even more so than it is film, preserves the primary function of a movie, a progression of images juxtaposed so that the distinction between them provokes the story further within the point of view of the viewer.

Mamet tells his story with cuts which advance his story, which is being told with shots that if they were words would be expressed by using two or more rather than adding nuance to one. Likewise, Mamet to this day has not used narration, instead allowing everything to be understood through dramatic action. He understands it as a second-rate short cut in literally telling the viewer what the filmmakers do not believe he or she would comprehend otherwise. Mamet cares very little about whether or not the audience can guess a given narrative element's significance. Rather, he simply unravels the story, allowing the audience to naturally be surprised."