I am NOT a fan of cowboy movies. I was flipping channels when I saw it on TV. I don't like any of the classics like John Wayne. This movie was very well done and I was captivated for the whole thing. I was so touched by the ending till I had to Google to find out the name of it. I love truly artistic movies, especially when it's by African Americans. This is not one of those stupid movies which is derogatory or demeaning like "Soul Plane" this film was captivating. I recommend that you truly give this movie a real chance it is worth it. I know there are several negative reviews and I have noticed that several of the movies with African American casts get negative reviews. Its easy to judge and write off people and art when you don't open your mind to understand. I hope after reading my review you feel compelled to try to understand this is not meant to be funny, but is a very touching movie.

This film is not quite as bad as most people posting here remark. The action scenes aren't great, but they are passable. The actors are all undeniably charismatic. The story has its drawing power with real potential, even if this is never realized. The central problem remains, however: like most 'post-modern Westerns,' it's very unclear what of this we're to take seriously, if any of it. If it is just to be a kind of 'gangsta Western,' then it needs far more and far better action, or if it's to be a comedy, then it needs far more and far better jokes. I think the great disappointment in this film, that it is neither comedy nor action film, nor even some weird hybrid, is what most reviewers are responding to.I'm going to quote another IMDb reviewer (Winner55) on another film, Raimi's 'The Quick and The Dead.' Since I know this reviewer personally, I know he won't mind; he makes the point about 'post-modern westerns' far better than I could: "The post-modern Western, as a kind of parasitic sub-genre of the Western, began as self-conscious parody of the Western. The precursors were films like The Marx Brothers Go West and Bob Hope's Paleface - films set in the 19th century but including references to events of the 194os. But the post-modern really began to come out on its own as afterthought to the Spaghetti Western, the formula for which included larger-than-life caricatures of the traditional Hollywood Western. The best known of these early Post-Mod Westerns were the Trinity films, but there was actually a more successful American variant from about the same time (early 1970s), Support Your Local Sheriff."Notice that all the films mentioned so far have been comedies. For some reason, the makers of Post-Mod Westerns soon began taking themselves seriously, as heavily ironic commentary on the politics of the day - think El Topo, Dirty Little Billy, Doc. Most of these were failures - El Topo once considered a cult film, is virtually unwatchable now."But the serious Post-Mods did leave a legacy. Since the mid-1980s, a number of films have deployed the same heavy irony, although politics is no longer a major concern. Among the first noticeable of these revised Post-Mods was the 'Brat Pack'version of the Billy the Kid story, Young Guns. This film sold very well, but largely due to the all-star cast involved; most critics did recognize a deeper problem with it, that it was difficult to determine what of it was serious, what comedic, and what just pure self-indulgence, as in the infamous peyote sequence (which, already bad, nonetheless left such an impression it got redone in Tony Scott's abysmal Domino)."This problem now really defines the Post-Mod Western. Watching these films, are we indulging in a fantasy, the plot and themes to be taken seriously despite the irony? Or is the irony simply a cheap and easy form of over-intellectualized comedy? The lack of any clear answer is the real lasting impression any of these films leave with us."

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.

"Brothers In Arms" is a decent urban western. The plot is about two brothers and his gang of thieves who plan to rob a bank. The only things that stand in their way are: The corrupt town governor Driscoll and his bounty hunters.The movie is fast-paced but the bank robbery scene\aftermath is almost half the movie and because of that there is some repetition in the dialogue.The performances are okay. The standouts are Raymond Cruz as the Reverend and David Carradine as Driscoll. Ed Lauter and Kurupt stand around for most of the film. The gunfights could also use some improvement. When the ending comes it stops being an action movie and starts being a drama, which works actually.In the end: Besides some minor problems, "Brothers In Arms" is still worth watching.For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com