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."

This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen and the director deserves to be punched in the face. First, there's the massive history inaccuracy. I'm not racist, but why the hell are blacks and whites mixing with each other in a bar in 1866, in Texas, a year after the civil war!?! Second, the editing is atrocious, the worst I've ever seen. During a scene where the main cast is surrounded in a house with heaps of bad guys are shooting away, a scene where one of the guys in the house sticking a shotgun out a window is repeated 4 times. 4 times!! And by the time the shotgun sound is added in we've skipped to another frame! Third why the hell did I watch this movie! there were heaps of other better looking movie to hire but I had to pick this one! I could go on for ages about how crap this movie is, but I won't. I'd give this movie zero, but the rating system won't let me. Just don't see this piece of crap.

We all said at some point 'this was the worst movie i have ever seen',but common...this movie is a shame.I watch 'behind the scenes' or making of' of almost every movie I see...All the actors had only great words regarding the director and his work.The bad part is that even Carradine talked nice about him and the movie.Even Carradine?Well,he's good,maybe we think too much of him,i don't know.In my opinion,the director had the entire fault.Some should just do something else with the money,even donate...but stop doing 'things' like 'Brothers in arms'.I could say a lot of bad words,but i'm not gonna bother no more...1 is way to good for this movie..we should start our votes from 0,1

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.