That was an excellent one.

Such a frustrating disappointment

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

i must have seen a different film!!

First of all, I feel I should say that I am a HUGE fan of westerns. So much so, that I am often very forgiving if a western has some shortcomings. But with "Brothers In Arms", I simply could not accept what it had to offer. There are so many things wrong with it. There's the modern hip-hop music score. The characters dressed in costumes that not only look too modern, but don't look like they've been lived in long. The look of the movie is wretched, being badly photographed, badly lit, and filtered to look too murky. The locations in and out of town look boring. The shootouts are badly directed and edited. There's modern slang spoken. There is a female sheriff. And if you put all of his footage together, David Carradine has no more than five minutes of screen time. I can't see this appealing to either an "urban" audience or for western addicts.

Recap: Brothers Linc and Zane, armed robbers in the wild west, gather the gang once more for one final job. The target, a bank, which in its vault has over a quarter of a million dollars for the railroad salaries. The only problem is that the town is practically owned by a ruthless man, one Mr Driscoll. Driscoll's son, Burt, is responsible for the death of Linc's and Zane's mother. And Driscoll's man Wolverton responsible for the death of the Reverend's family. So when the gang is in town, to check out the bank, they run in to Burt, killing him. This brings down the wrath of Driscoll and Wolverton, but the gang still decides that the job is worth the risk.Comments: This is a very shallow movie, somewhat entertaining but with no depth in it at all. It tries to by bringing in connections and relations between a lot of the characters on either side of the law, but as these are never explored, just mentioned, it brings nothing. There are some action, and gunfights, and that is what makes the movie watchable. The gunfights are not good though, not very realistic at all. People just stand there, firing repeatedly. Not very much else happens, actually.This is a movie to see if you are bored. Then it can kill some time for you. But if you look for a quality movie, keep looking.3/10

This film is waste of time, money, oxygen, cigarettes, cokes, electricity, etc. It cannot be worse than this. There is no acting, no directing, no camera moves or tricks or effects... The script is awful. Full of clichés, the worst ones... Music is just stupid. The casting is utterly and totally catastrophe. I like KURUPT though. But he does not talk very much. They tried to mix the white western culture and black R&B-HIPHOP thing!!! I don't even know what to call it. What is David Carradine doing there? Believe me I really want to give away the ending, but I will not, I don't know why. just DON'T !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please... I am begging you

Let me start out by saying that I am a white male. I thought it was a decent effort at what they were attempting to do with this movie, so I've rated it a 4. But overall, this movie sucked.Every time the camera was on a different person it was like the show stopped and they were trying to make some big drama out of each character. In order for that to work, people have to care, and I didn't care at all. It was like a bunch of different ideas that they were trying to mold into one film, but they didn't complete any of those ideas and in my opinion they didn't even work together.Now let me get to the part that is probably controversial. I watched the special features on the DVD to see what the maker of this film, Jean Claude, was thinking... because really, a black western? An urban western?? Hey I'm a fan of Moulin Rouge where they incorporated modern music through the whole movie and it was superb, so I am not against new ideas. But Moulin Rouge was as much of a comedy as it was a love story and musical. It was meant to be a fantasy world of dreamers.Brothers in Arms was to be taken completely seriously. Jean Claude explained that he wants to be the person to show people that there can be black westerns, that there can be black sci-fi, and a "black race car movie", etc. I admire his intentions, but for the love of God, a black western?? I kept waiting for there to be some kind of narration in the beginning that spoke of blacks in the old west, historically speaking. If that were the case, if the movie were to be documenting the little known black addition to the old west, I would have been glued to the screen. But this movie's attempt to put blacks in a western is like someone making a remake to Roots featuring an all white cast.