Undisputed (2002) Poster

(2002)

User Reviews

Review this title
91 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A Champ
jon.h.ochiai27 August 2002
Director Walter Hill's "Undisputed" is a great guy's movie. It's a fight movie set in Sweetwater Prison in the Mohavje Desert, starring tough guys Wesley Snipes and Ving Rhames. What distinguishes this guy's movie are a couple things: the expert and lean direction of Hill, the crisp and intelligent script by David Giler and Hill, and one of the best boxing fight scenes ever done in the movies.

Ving Rhames plays former undisputed Heavyweight Champion James "Ice Man" Chambers, convicted of rape and stripped of his title and sentenced to serve his time in Sweetwater. While there he learns that Monroe Hutchen (Wesley Snipes) is the "undisputed" champ at Sweetwater, and he has been undefeated champion for ten years. For the Ice Man, there can be only one champion, and that would be himself. It is predictable that the two will fight at the end, and this is arranged by mobster inmate Mendy Ripstein (a very good Peter Falk). What is not predicable is that Giler and Hill make both Ice Man and Monroe admirable and fascinating characters. You have to credit Rhames and Snipes. Rhames takes what could have been a Mike Tyson caricature, and transformed him into a complex and empathic character. His Ice Man is vicious, crude, arrogant, but also both smart and articulate. Credit Rhames on several occasions for scaring us with the ruthlessness of his Ice Man, and for also surprising us with his understanding of his stature in life as a Heavyweight champion. Ice Man is definitely the more showy character. Snipes underplays it right as Monroe, a great foil to the Ice Man. Snipes's Monroe is not afraid. Monroe knows that "Any fighter can be beat on a given day...", and the game is how long you stay on top and be the best. Monroe is matter of fact, and always in control-- the last time he wasn't got him in prison. Ice and Monroe are both convicts that operate by a code of honor, and that makes all the difference in the movie. It's all about standing your ground, and whoever wins, wins. "Undisputed" also is an homage to boxing and it's history, because ultimately it is about two men seeing who is better on that particular day. There is something pure and whole about that, which is both appreciated and respected.

The final boxing match is awesome. Snipes is an accomplished martial artist and he trained with Emmanuel Stewart. Snipes looks amazing as a boxer-- body movement and combinations. Rhames also looks very impressive and fearsome. It's a 15 minute fight in a 90 minute movie. Walter Hill is the Man.

"Undisputed" is a no nonsense boxing movie that entertains and makes us think. And that is not bad for a very unpretentious movie.
38 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A sharp and hard-hitting boxing drama.
mhasheider13 May 2003
Seems like an eternity since director Walter Hill ("48 HRS.", "Streets of Fire", "Southern Comfort") made a really good movie and his latest offering "Undisputed" shows that Hill still has the skill to create a clever movie.

"Undisputed" is the second movie about boxing that Hill has done, the first being his feature debut "Hard Times" that starred Charles Bronson and the late James Coburn in the mid-seventies.

The tale takes place at an isolated Arizona maximum security prison where a former heavyweight boxing champ (Rhames) is sent to serve a sentence for rape meets a counterpart (Snipes) who is an undefeated champ in the prison ranks and the opportunity to have the two fighters face each other in a bout arranged by a former mobster (Peter Falk) who still has mob connections outside the prison and a devoted fan of the sport.

And the result is a sharp and hard-hitting boxing drama with the fight being the center piece. Snipes and Rhames are terrific here and the supporting performances are just as good especially Michael Rooker, Wes Studi, and Falk, too.

"Undisputed" may not top "Rocky" or "Raging Bull" in being the best movie about the sport, but it deserves some mention.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Two sets of genres are run together (clichés and all) in a film that has little substance but just enough energy and style to make for a distracting piece of entertainment
bob the moo6 February 2006
When heavyweight champion of the world James "Iceman" Chambers is found guilty of rape of a showgirl he is sent to a new prison in the Californian desert where they send all the more unsavoury prisoners to avoid contaminating those "only" convinced of lesser crimes. However there already is an internal boxing contest within the prison and it already has a champ of over 10 years – Monroe Hutchens. Keen to establish who's is bigger, Iceman shows him up in front of the other inmates. To avoid a riot the warden puts Monroe in solitary while Iceman continues to tough it out in prison. As his expensive legal team prepare an appeal and defend all sorts of other actions, elderly mobster Mendy Ripstein starts pulling the strings to put on the only fight anyone wants to see – Monroe v Iceman.

Starting with a solid 15 minutes of style and energy I wondering if the film would be able to keep the pace up but, despite turning it down a little bit, the film does essentially keep moving with energy and style right till the very end. And it is just as well because there isn't really any substance to talk of in this rather noisy affair. The main character is essentially the writer's take on Tyson but the film doesn't really do anything more interesting with it that just hang the suggested similarities out there – Rhames may occasionally try to express something deeper than this but the material isn't there to help him. As it is though, Hill's direction and manner of keeping the screen busy and the camera moving helps inject life into what is really just a cross of clichés from sports movies and prison movies. It had enough to it to engage and entertain me without ever threatening to stick in my mind for much longer than the time it took to watch it.

The cast do a lot to help the impression of substance by providing lots of faces who put in effort. Rhames is a solid lead who does his Tyson impression well without ever lifting the material. Snipes matches him on this level by producing a simple performance but adding an impressive physical presence to the proceedings. The support cast are not all used that well but are essentially an impressive collection of well known faces who do add a sense of quality even if it doesn't deserve it. Falk was a strange but enjoyable find, while Rooker, Seda, Studi, Stevens, Lover and others all fill in around the edges.

Overall this is a fairly vacuous affair that gets by on huff, puff, energy and style and just about does it well enough to provide a distracting film without doing anything great. Two sets of genre clichés are pushed together and delivered with energy by Hill and his impressive cast and, while it isn't anything special it should at least provide brainless filler for 90 minutes.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Another Movie About Prison, This One Combined with Boxing
claudio_carvalho11 August 2003
Monroe Hutchens (Wesley Snipes) is the heavyweight champion of Sweetwater, a maximum security prison. He was convicted to a life sentence due to a passionate crime. Iceman Chambers (Ving Rhames) is the heavyweight champion, who lost his title due to a rape conviction to ten years in Sweetwater. Of course they will fight against each other, in a very predictable and full of clichés screenplay.

The story of Iceman Chambers is basically what happened with Mike Tyson. Movies about prison are attractive most of the time and this one is no exception to the rule. The choreography of the fights are perfect, therefore fans of this sport will like it. Wesley Snipes looks indeed like a real boxing fighter. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Invencível" ("The Invincible")
23 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
a nice film to watch
kiran-parry14 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Tells the story of a heavyweight champion boxer who ends up in prison for murder.In the end he fights another great boxer and faces a tough challenge.

This film was delivered very well and should force its viewers to view this entertaining piece of well done action.This film is done with an outstanding bit of action.This film is emotional in parts and as a very delivered storyline that should entertain most of its audience.

This is by no means a masterpiece or flawless but it does have entertaining parts to keep this film a well delivered boxing film. This is reccomendable and is something you should check out its nothing like brilliance but the film is balanced and is viewable and is just well delivered.This film isn't appalling or anywhere near but I wouldn't say this film is exceptional either.

Overall I recommend it.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
When does a champ become the challenger?
michaelRokeefe9 June 2003
Outstanding movie with prison combined with boxing. A heavyweight title holder(Ving Rhames)is sent to Sweetwater Prison on a rape charge. It doesn't take long for the movers and shakers to set up a match with the champ and the prison champ(Wesley Snipes). A battle of undisputed undefeated. Very good fight scenes and you almost feel the sweat. A little slow at times, but the big showdown is all worth it. It is obvious Snipes and Rhames worked hard to pull this off. Peter Falk plays a vulgar mouthed resident gangster that thinks he rules the prison. Also in the cast are: Fisher Stevens, Wes Studi and Michael Rooker. This one goes the distance.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is a comedy isnt it ? An appalling film ....(spoiler)
mrkipling26 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Absolutely one of the p**s poorest films I have ever had the misfortune of watching.I didnt expect much of a plot but this was ridiculous. With two established actors like Rhames and Snipes I thought one of them might turn out a half decent performance but both are laughable, and Columbo (peter Faulk) is just a joke, Especially the scene where he uses F**K about 25 times in about 40 seconds (Im not exaggerating !) I was watching it with friends and we were wetting ourselves laughing by this point. I think the whole film was made on a budget of about $500 and this was probably spent on the helicopter flight near the beginning.

The Icing on the cake is probably the climax of the film, The "Big Fight". The Prison rap group singing the USA National anthem was Hideous what was everyone thinking as they filmed that ?? We had to fast forward that bit it was so poor. The fight goes on with possibly the worst audio dubbing I have yet to hear in a film, Both fighters with limitless energy and not a bit of blood on either face, even after getting smacked in the face about 300 times each.

All in all a ridiculously obvious plot (if you can call it that) with every cliche in the book thrown in. Terrible acting, directing and editing, help to make this an absolute lemon of a film. Im not a person who would normally bother to right a review, but after watching this s***e i felt compelled to do so.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Directed By Walter Hill ?
Theo Robertson14 January 2006
As soon as this prison movie starts you realise it was directed by a young inexperienced director who has been influenced by rap videos on the MTV channel and multiple viewings of OZ . As soon as a character is introduced BOOM a rap track starts and we see a caption giving the characters name , their crime and date of sentence . One can't feeling that this young director wanted to include a flashback scene but possible litigation by HBO stopped him . The real bad news is that the director of UNDISPUTED isn't a young hip director who has potential - the director is Walter Hill and it's obvious his career is in free fall as he bombards the audience with all types of choppy MTV effects

This wouldn't be so bad if there was a great storyline but the script doesn't even reach being mediocre and it's really quite bad . Heavyweight champ James " Iceman " Chambers is sentenced to 6 to 8 years for rape ( Gosh I wonder who that could be based on ? ) and the prison Mr Fix-it Mendy Ripstien arranges for Iceman to go head to head with prison champ Monroe Hutchen . I take it Ripstien is Jewish ? And he's sentenced for tax evasion ! Hey don't worry about clichéd stereotypes or anything like that . Oh and despite being a maximum security prison Mr Ripstien has friends who are white , Latino and African American . Even Hutchen has a colleague who's white . Hey anyone who wants to see what a success American ethnic diversity and multiculturalism is really must get themselves sentenced to some serious time in an American maximum security prison where everyone respects one another and never judge anyone on the colour of their skin

I suppose the laughable unreality of a melting pot inside an American prison stops everyone noticing the rather poor casting choices in this film . I notice Ving Rhames is very often filmed from the chest upwards and rarely takes off his shirt . Is this because the audience won't be fooled into believing a 42 year old man with a fair amount of flab is unconvincing as a heavyweight boxing champ ? I think it might . Wesley Snipes is well buffed but it's painfully obvious he's far too short to be considered a heavyweight and in reality he'd only be a middleweight in boxing terms . That said I doubt if the audience will be able to connect with either fighter anyway since one's a rapist and the other is a murderer so why should we be cheering on either man ?
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
PAGING MIKE TYSON
george.schmidt26 August 2002
UNDISPUTED (2002) **1/2 Wesley Snipes, Ving Rhames, Peter Falk, Michael Rooker, Fisher Stevens, Jon Seda, Wes Studi, Denis Arndt, Ed Lover. Hard-hitting yet formulaic boxing-in-prison flick with professional pugilist and heavyweight world champ Rhames facing off with the maximum security's current in-stir (and undefeated) competitor Snipes (both in amazing physical shape and displaying enough testosterone for two flicks). Falk, at his crustiest, is a scene-stealing hoot as the aged Mafioso con that sets up the grudge match and gets the grease to the wheel. Filmmaker Walter Hill (who co-wrote the lean, mean screenplay with frequent collaborator David Giler ) proves to be a formidable genre helmsman but offers the viewer wanting more.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ponderous,even for 90 minutes.
davideo-221 April 2003
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

The reliably dreary Walter Hill churns out yet another slow-moving,action lacking yarn.The story is an incoherent,structureless bore concerning the impending showdown between Sweatwater Prison's reigning boxing champ (Wesley Snipes) and the rough,heavy new arrival (Ving Rhames).Performance wise,Rhames is quite impressive as a volatile,easily provoked big-brooding thug who makes Mike Tyson look like a pussycat in comparison,but Snipes is wasted as a more reserved,Lennox Lewis-alike who practises oragami in his spare time.And sadly,for an actor who can usually be relied upon to deliver the dramatic goods,for some reason here he seems really disinterested in his role,not bothering to flex any emotion or sense of involvement whatsoever.

In fact,the whole thing seems to have been weirdly inspired by the year's big Lewis/Tyson showdown event.Oh well,the real thing always is more exciting isn't it?**
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I think the plus comments here are written by steroid abusers.
Spikeopath4 March 2008
I'm sorry if that comes across as harsh but this film is a complete mess, both in the editing room and to the bewildered acting from some usually tidy performers. The plot is a straight forward one that doesn't call for much ingenuity on the viewers behalf, we can reasonably expect competent acting and choreography in what is basically an unofficial biopic of Mike Tyson's conviction for rape and his subsequent time in prison.

Instead of putting heart to the story the makers have simply plonked two big name black actors in a prison setting with one having a bigger mouth and ego than the other, and all this leading to a big punch up to decide who is the rugged and toughest man on the planet !. Throw away interview scenes of the woman raped by our main protagonist don't garner sympathy or merit because they are so misplaced and badly acted they seem like an edited after thought.

Poor film and in one scene where Michael Rooker looks bemused at the fight between Ving Rhames & Wesley Snipes.......it says it all, it's embarrassing so don't be fooled by the talent appearing in the movie, they are all wasted and deserve better, hell we all do, 2/10.
16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Undisputed chump of the world!
kamy_2211 August 2003
This is the probably the most crummiest movie I have seen in my life. What is even more disappointing is the fact that the talented Walter Hill is involved.

Wesley Snipes' acting is bad (no change there), Ving Rhames walks around punching anything that moves. The whole movie is slow and moves towards the inevitable 'fight'. Even this is poor, with no resemblance to a boxing fight. There are better prison/boxing movies out there and 'Undisputable' is not one of them.

Also why didn't Mike Tyson sue the studio for obviously ripping off his life story! I don't know.

Don't waste your time on this drivel, instead rent out a good boxing movie such as The Hurricane, Raging Bull or even Rocky.

Avoid the "Undisputed" chump of the movie world 0 out 5

PS: how does Wesley Snipes get away with making stinking movies?
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Terrible!
snake775 January 2003
I just can't think of a single reason to recommend this movie. Bad direction, dumb story, bad acting, it even has lousy editing and music. Just a complete waste of time. Even boxing fans should avoid this turkey. Hard to believe it came from the hand of Walter Hill.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Undisputed Waste!
buckaroobanzai5015 October 2004
At this very moment as I type, I am watching what has to be one of THE worst movies I have seen, in a long time. I cannot believe that Walter Hill, who gave us Red Heat among many other great films, actually directed this. It is a total waste from start to finish. There are some great actors in this trash: Wesley Snipes, Ving Rhames, Peter Falk, and Michael Rooker. Also some bad ones like Fisher Stevens. But the lame script does them all no justice. An attempt at adding tension to the build up to a supposed great fight in the prison inwhich the film is set, falls flat every time a lame caption such as "...9 days to the fight." appears on screen. And even the actual boxing match is lackluster, when compared to the ones in the Rocky movies. Wesley Snipes hasn't had a hit film in years, and one hopes that the soon to be released Blade 3 will wash the bad taste of Undisputed out of his fans mouthes.

AVOID at all costs...Unless you wish to see Columbo spit forth about fifty expletives in as many seconds.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
In dispute
BigGuy23 August 2002
There was nothing original or even that interesting about this movie. The plot obviously is based on a parallel universe where Mike Tyson got into lots of fights while in prison and in which there are plenty of underground jail boxing matches.

Most action oriented movies lack some degree of originality which is forgivable under certain circumstances. The first is if the characters are interesting. In this case the characters are very one dimensional each portraying basically one emotion or trait. The most depth any character has is Snipes' who is the typical tough guy with a creative side. The second way an action movie can redeem the lack of originality is by having good action sequences. In this case the majority of action scenes are that new fangled shaky cam. If any director is reading this NO ONE LIKES THE SHAKY CAM. We like to see what is happening. There were a few brief moments when it was basically clear what was going on, but generally not. Another way to save an action movie is to have plenty of action... In this case there was one main fight, a couple of flashback fights and a few one punch fights. Not enough to make up for the lack of plot, characters or quality.

All that being said, it can't be said this movie was terrible. There were a few good moments and sparks of quality, but overall the effect was unimpressive. One nice idea was that neither Snipes not Rhames played particularly good people. Snipes plays a character who is basically neutral. He definitely isn't good but not truly bad either, which is the only truly redeeming quality of the movie.

For fans of the actors, the movie might be worth seeing. For fans of boxing there are a very few redeeming scenes. For everyone else wait for it to come out on video.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Criminal vs. criminal...who cares!
Boba_Fett11385 October 2008
This is a pretty boring jail-boxing-flick (yah, what a word!) that features very little story, uninteresting main characters and a concept that focuses purely on the boxing aspects and forgets basically everything else.

There is one big problem with this movie; it's two main characters played by Wesley Snipes and Ving Rhames. Both are boxing professionals who got convicted, one for murder, the other for rape. Seems like the Snipes character got somewhat based on Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter and the Rhames character obviously on Mike Tyson. But fact is that both are tough criminals, who obviously are no choir boys. They are not really portrayed in a likable way and you just don't know who to cheer for. My guess is that it was the movie its intension to make the Snipes character the more likable one but he's portrayed in an incredible unsympathetic way and quite honestly I would always rather hang out with Ving Rhames than with Wesley Snipes, no matter what crime he committed. The movie features of course other characters, of which some got portrayed by some good and well known actors (Peter Falk, Michael Rooker) but you just don't ever care about any of them and most also feel rather pointless within the movie.

So yes, the main characters are a problem but so is its story. Basically all the story does is build up to its inevitable end fight. It's makes the movie predictable but boring as well, since basically very little else is ever happening in the movie.

Walter Hill was once a new promising action movie director but with movies like this he shows that he sort of has lost his touch. It's a very clichéd made movie that features all of the ingredients you would expect from it. The already bad and uninteresting story gets also told in a bad and uninteresting way within the movie. He tries to give the movie some style and pace but it really doesn't work out too well.

Normally I'm still quite fond of boxing movies but this movie just has very little redeeming qualities. The movie just doesn't offer anything new or exciting to watch. The boxing matches within the movie aren't exactly anything adrenaline pumping, also because you already know in advance how they are all going to end.

Not really recommendable...

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This movie is God Awful!!!!
oaklandraidersfan1 July 2005
I've never really been a huge fan of Wesley Snipes, but this has got to be one of his worse, if not THE worst, performance of his career. The story is WEAK!!! I understand that movies ask you to suspend your disbelief, but I was hardly expecting a fantasy movie when I popped this one into the DVD player. Honestly, I really had a hard time sitting through the movie just because of the way that it portrays prison life. Ving Rhames should've been shanked at least 50 different times. The holes in the "prison" story aside, this movie still leaves much to be desired. I found it laughable that the ringside announcer called one of the fights "the best fight that I have ever seen!" because right before he said that, I was thinking, "these boxing scenes are worse than Rocky." Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the Rocky series, but let's be honest, the boxing scenes were very unrealistic. Well, Undisputed took that unrealism to new heights. I rated this movie a 2, only because I CAN think of maybe 20 movies that were worse. If you read this before you ever watch this movie, take my advice: don't.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
" Boxing is an Art. Two men fight, only one can win, it's a thing of beauty "
thinker169117 May 2010
In the world of rank boxing, there are many notable fights which can be measured on one hand. But in the world of Cinamatic boxing there are dozens which have been made into Hollywood legends. In this release, called " Undisputed " the result was the creation of a boxing Classic. It is the story of the Heavyweight Champion of the World, George 'Iceman' Chambers (Ving Rhames) who has been arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison. Undefeated on the outside world, Chambers learns that at Sweetwater Prison, another man shares that distinguished title. That individual is Monroe Hutchen (Wesley Snipes) who hold the record of never having lost a boxing match. However, even though a fight between these two athletes is inevitable, the Warden moves to quash the event. However, Mendy Ripstein a Mafia gangster (Peter Falk) from the old days steps in, uses his considerable influence and the special match is back on. The entire confrontation is seen by officials as a potential explosion, the Captain of the guard, A.J.Mercker (Michael Rooker) believes he can control over 700 riotous inmates and one memorable fight to the finish. Jon Seda, Wes Studi, and Fisher Stevens as James 'Ratbag' Kroycek, add to the dramatic intensity and over all excitement which is the main-stay of this incredible film. With top notch acting and believability of the superior actors, (especially when Rhames and Snipes are equally matched) the result is one cage fight away from memorable entertainment. ****
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It was fun - For a boxing fan like me.
blancokillah17 July 2007
There is definitely no doubt about what was great about this movie. The boxing sequences were not only action packed but also mostly realistic (There was some defense, there were jabs and not only heavy power punches). The final fight (which is I think no spoiler since every boxing movie ends with a big match) was thrilling, you wouldn't know until the end who was actually going to win (which is rather unrealistic but also inevitable for a movie that considers itself as "action" and also wants to entertain the audience. My big problem with the movie were the characters. Not only are they one-dimensional, we don't even learn too much about them. It is like (and that might be the movie's intention) life only takes place in prison, everything what the human individuals have been before they were sent to jail now doesn't count anymore. That's actually a nice concept but not if the only solution to achieve this aim was to avoid giving the characters any background. The protagonists remain without soul, we never get to know whether they are good or bad, whether they committed their crimes and whether we are supposed to feel for the one or the other. Who is the antagonist in the movie? Is it the one who is supported from all the prison inmates and guards, who is undisputed in the prison-fight-system or is it the one who should-if the outside world ever should learn about the fight and maybe even not if- have the public's support, who is undisputed in the "normal" boxing world. both have their pros and cons and only the outcome of the fight made me know who I could have thought of as the good guy, since he won. My problem was, I liked the other one better. But that was just me and is up to anybody else since this movie really lets you make your choice on your own. And again: A good idea: A boxing movie where both fighters are illuminated, the audience learns to know them both and both have the same screen time. (Imagine, we would have learned about Drago's degradation by the military of becoming a boxing slave for them). But both characters remain flat and really likable is none of them. That was a pity since you could notice that this was no rushed movie, there was a good concept and a good (though rather short-an action)plot and great names : Ving Rhames and Wesley Snipes-It's worth watching the movie just to see them on screen together. But all in all: there is something missing what could have made this movie great. Part II has that something but that one is dumb-but it's more violent and the action sequences are (also due to that) maybe even better(though it's no boxing anymore what I found stupid since the first was nothing but a boxing movie.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
When loud mouth athletes go to prison
view_and_review3 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Mike Tyson goes to prison and is subsequently defeated in a prison boxing match. OK, maybe it wasn't Mike Tyson, but it was eerily similar to the Mike Tyson story. Iceman Chambers (Ving Rhames) is a heavyweight boxer that goes to prison for sexually assaulting a woman (very Tyson like). While in prison he runs his mouth, makes a lot of enemies, and beats up a few people as well. The entire movie was setting up the eventual fight between the new prison badass and the established prison ring king. The two boxers couldn't be more dissimilar, which made it very easy to choose who to root for. Iceman was a brash, arrogant, bully, whereas Monroe Hutchens (Wesley Snipes) was a quiet, reserved, modest yet confident guy. The movie was interesting if you are the person that is curious to know what may have happened when Tyson went to prison.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Formula movie but well done
Hang_All_Drunkdrivers28 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I like all prison movies and think "escape from alcatraz" is the best but this one is pretty good too. Wesley Snipes shows once again that he is the greatest action star in film history as he plays a prison boxing champ who's matched against Iceman Chambers (Ving Rhames) just sent to prison for rape. The iceman is super-obviously modeled on mike tyson. Sent to prison on the mere word of a gold-digging tramp who has become a talk-show star and is now suing him for millions!!!

It all builds up to the big fight which is very realistic but wasn't all that exciting as it runs just like the climactic fight in Rocky. SPOILER - The underdog (snipes) starts out getting his butt whipped and then, for no apparent reason, starts landing punches and wins and that's that. They really needed to add something new to that tired scenario. Plus, snipes is too small. It looked like a middleweight fighting a gorilla. Still a good show.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Energetic, Engaging.
barryagilbert8 June 2003
I'm not usually a Wesley Snipes fan but here his zen-like demeanor is put to good use as the underdog in a match between the world champeen and the local hero in a maximum security prison. This film feels like an example of the old adage that a small budget often results in greater creativity. Just feels like some old pros f***ing around with a genre film, having a good time, and the thing is quite fun so long as you're comfortable with some updated cinematic cliches, a weird Peter Falk and you're not the type who always needs a message in their cinema. Very good fight scenes.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
KICK BUTT
melik_200123 February 2003
I got knocked up side the head on one side and slammed on the other. `Undisputed' was a knock out. This movie is what I like to call 'bada**'. A little too convenient in some parts but as a whole this movie delivers a solid punch.

Ving Rhames is the former undisputed Heavyweight Champion James "Iceman" Chambers, convicted of rape, stripped of his title and sentenced to serve his time in Sweetwater Prison. Sweetwater Prison? What is that all about? I guess we will never know. Once inside Chambers learns that Monroe Hutchens, played by Wesley Snipes, is the "undisputed" champ at Sweetwater. Hutchen has been the undefeated champion for ten years. As far as the James Chambers is concerned there can be only one champion, and that would be hi m - The Ice Man and he is out to prove it.

I liked Wesley Snipes' portrayal of the Monroe Hutchens. He had an interesting split personality of a ruthless, fight to the finished brusher that had an interesting calmness about him in situations that he knew he could not fight his way out of.

Ving Rhames' character was just strange to me. He continues to maintain his innocence throughout the movie just like a good prison character. However his demeanor is anything less than admirable. With Ving Rhames knocking people around proving that he is the strongest, baddest, hardest hitting sledgehammer walking the face of the earth you can not help but hope that he gets a major butt kicking.

I must clue you in on the happy little surprise character Marvin Bonds played by Ed Lover. I love Ed Lover ever since back in the day of Yo Mtv Raps when Mtv used to play music videos. His colorful officiating is just as hard hitting as the boxing. The final box match is brought to a hilt by the stylistic banter of the 'Lover'.

Undisputed is a full bodied entertaining hardnosed flick that will stimulate your mind as well as your emotions. Go see this before it slips away. That's my word for what's on the screen.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Boys night out
scobie10 September 2002
Although the average rating for this movie on IMDb so far is even for males and females, the huge disparity in the number of each which has voted indicates that this is clearly a "boys'" movie. After all, it's not just about boxing and prison, it's about boxing IN prison.

The plot is pretty simple: The "Iceman" (Ving Rhames) is the unbeaten heavyweight boxing champion who has been convicted of rape. (Does that sound familiar?) Monroe Hutchens (Wesley Snipes), a former ranked boxer who lost his temper and beat his lady's boyfriend to death 10 years ago, is the unbeaten champion of the maximum security prison in the Mojave Desert to which the Iceman is assigned to serve his sentence - or at least until his expensive lawyers can get him out. Naturally, the two must meet to decide who will be the Undisputed champion. Meanwhile, Mendy Ripstein (Peter Falk), an aficionado of the sweet science and old-time mobster who because of his wife's allergies left Florida - where they know who's who - for California - where they don't - and fell afoul of the tax authorities, plots to make a killing betting on the fight.

You can guess who wins, but that's hardly the point. The enjoyment in the movie comes from its execution, which is stylishly handled by veteran Walter Hill, who moves things along at a fast enough pace that you don't have time to dwell on the prison-movie cliches - this place owes more to "Oz" than to any real prison, I suspect - and the occasional hyperbole. (Was it really necessary to weld the door shut when Monroe is sent to solitary? And do inmates anywhere still bang their cups and do the Big House Chant? Holy Jimmy Cagney.)

Rhames plays his part with plenty of mean mother style and even a little pathos, Snipes is adequate, and Falk is hilarious. Fisher Stevens, playing a very seedy arsonist who acts as Monroe's "manager", leads a solid supporting cast.

Warning: this being a boys' movie, you may find your audience off-putting. When I saw it, the boys jeered whenever the alleged victim appeared on screen to tell her story. She seems quite credible and sympathetic, but of course the Iceman contends she "really wanted it" and made her accusations merely to score, and as he says, "when you can fight, people love you". Well, some people do, and as shown by the case of the fighter on whom Iceman is obviously based, they're willing to give a chance to a man who can fight which they wouldn't give to any ordinary criminal. If this breezy piece of escapism has a point, that would be it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A poorly disguised Mike Tyson storyline...
Capri13 September 2002
and what was the point of Peter Falk's dialogue? Did he fail to memorize his lines and just substitute f... for every adverb and adjective originally written into the script? Wesley Snipes, Ving Rhames and Peter Falk have done better movies with a lot more punch. Definitely for the men who enjoy pugilism!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed