Wonderful character development!

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

I love bad movies. I specialise in bad movies It seems common to hear about the worst film ever made. Bad films are more elusive than you might imagine. This is far from being a bad film. I can hardly find an aspect of film-making in which it fails.I'm not prepared to say how good it is. It takes me a while to warm to a film.We have black protagonists. Is that the problem? Are they musicians? It doesn't matter. They do well. You get a chance to see some fine support actors go through their paces. David Carradine, Raymond Cruz, Peter Green, Ed Lauter. These actors put the film on the radar of legitimate entertainment.Western clichés are revisited and are freshened up more than a little.The script seldom clunks. Characters are introduced and followed leading viewers to the climax, which is not formulaic.I really hope this film climbs out of the bottom hundred in time. It is occupying much needed space belonging to another film.

I can't believe someone would actually want to put this film out for the public to view. Acting was pitiful on most parts (Caradine and some of the other veteran actors excepted). Costumes ranged from tight leather pants and tube top to "Western" costumes from a bargain Halloween store. From the wimpy bank manager to the W.C. Fields mayor, characterization was corny and I felt embarrassed for the actors. I can't even begin to describe the errors and bastardization of Western life and culture. An absolute travesty. This relates to BAD as "Unforgiven" relates to great. I think a 5-year-old could write a better story, film it and direct it... probably even act in it! If someone wants to play cowboy and film it for fun with friends fine, but don't bother publishing it. I do believe you should ad at least a ZERO to your voting scale.

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.

While parts of this movie are kind of fun, and the director uses some really nice shots, other parts were super lame. The acting overall was mediocre, but given the script, they did about as much as they could with the material. David Carradine was the only standout as far as the acting goes.There were some costume decisions that were really bad and pulled me right out of the wild west. One character has a jacket with zippers on it. Zippers weren't around back then - they weren't invented until the early 1900s. The female lead's leather, belly-baring, bustier outfit was extremely anachronistic as well. It's straight out of a current day pop video and definitely something you could imagine Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera wearing, but not someone in a western lawless town in the 1800s. These things might seem nit-picky, but those are examples of the half-way done tone of the entire film.Overall it's a mediocre movie that should have been more fun than it was.