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.
17 out of 22 found this helpful