The film centers on a martial arts master who struggles to achieve financial stability without compromising on his strict set of morals, and must determine if the latest opportunities in his career are too good to be true.

One evening, at his Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu studio, martial arts teacher Mike Terry is approached by attorney Laura Black, who accidentally sideswiped his car.

Mike's wife Sondra, who works in fashion and resents having to keep the struggling studio afloat, demands he ask for a loan from her brother Ricardo, a mixed martial arts champion.

At a dinner party, Chet's wife Zena arranges an informal business deal to buy a large number of dresses from Sondra's company.

Mike hires Laura to sue, but Marty's lawyer threatens that if they do not drop the lawsuit, he will give the police proof that she broke the window attempting to kill Joe.

Mike feels obligated to help Joe's financially struggling wife and, in desperate need of money himself, agrees to compete as an undercard fighter in the upcoming competition.

[3] In an interview with Iain Blair of Reuters Life!, Mamet said he was interested in casting Ejiofor for his acting versatility after seeing his performances in Dirty Pretty Things and Kinky Boots, saying, "It's impossible for one guy to be able to play both those parts.

[citation needed] Sony Pictures Classics co-founder and co-president Tom Bernard said there were two marketing campaigns for the film, "one directed at MMA guys and another at the more upscale theaters."

Commercials and giveaway contests were run on Spike TV, and Mamet was invited to screen the film for members of New York's Lincoln Center.

The site's critics consensus reads: "Mamet's mixed marital[sic] arts morality play weaves between action and intellect but doesn't always hit its target.

Chocano wrote, "Ejiofor brings a calm magnetism and a beatific serenity to his roles that have the effect of knocking you flat -- there's something about this guy that's messianic."

While citing Tim Allen's performance as restrained, Chocano wrote "the noir puzzle element is central to the story" and "suffice it to say things get complicated," saying "much of the pleasure is in the surprises.

"[13] Ty Burr of The Boston Globe wrote "What Redbelt reminded me of more than anything else was a modern version of a classic film noir, particularly 1950's brilliantly seedy Night and the City, with its pro-wrestling subplot.

"[14] Manohla Dargis of The New York Times called it "a satisfying, unexpectedly involving B-movie that owes as much to old Hollywood as to Greek tragedy.

"[15] Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer said "One of the problems with the way Mamet resolves Mike's predicament is that it's ridiculously implausible - even in the context of a far-fetched fight story.

"[17] Film critic James Berardinelli said "The plot is borderline ridiculous and certainly doesn't stand up to close (or even not-so-close) scrutiny, but there's a level of entertainment to be had watching it unfold in all its strangeness," but also said "taken at face value, there's a degree of satisfaction in the way Redbelt concludes.

[21] In The Weekly Standard, Sonny Bunch wrote that the film's "heart is not in the twists and turns [...] but a careful character study of a man who lives a life based on honor, and the corrupting influence of money."