Brothers in Arms

2005
2.5| 1h25m| R| en| More Info
Released: 01 January 2005 Released
Producted By:
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Genre

Western

Watch Online

Brothers in Arms (2005) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

Jean-Claude La Marre

Production Companies

Brothers in Arms Videos and Images
View All

Brothers in Arms Audience Reviews

Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.
AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,
Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
bleekrs I thought this movie has been poorly made, with disregard of any historical sense. The one thing that caught me the most was that the black main character was wearing a leather jacket with modern zippers attached to it. The zipper wasn't designed until 1913, this is way past the cowboy time, this movie is portraying the viewer. Next to this, Woman were definitely not seen as equal to men and there for I raise my doubts about a female sheriff...Than, the one girl in the gang was wearing some type of tank top with her belly exposed, I just don't think women would wear something like that, specially not riding horses.
johnno-17 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."
Enchorde 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
Clay Smith I am about 70% of the way through this movie and I had to stop. I couldn't go any further after seeing the "wooden" teller counter in the bank bow under the weight of "Linc". I couldn't stop laughing after that. This movie is agonizing. It's painful to watch. I've always told people who criticize some of the "B" level horror films that I'm in a habit of watching that you have to suspend reality for two hours to enjoy most films. It's Hollywood. Enjoy the fantasy trip. But this film won't even let me suspend common sense, let alone reality. I'm guessing that the movie is supposed to be set sometime in late 1800's. I'm guessing because the movie is not even convincing me that it could have been set in any reasonable past time frame. Where to begin...the clothes...the clothes are a joke. It's the wild west meets MTV. Is it a movie or a music video...hmmm???? Check out the woman in the bank robbing gang. Women may have dressed that way in the wild west bordellos, but not for trail riding and bank robbing. The situations are laughable. You can't convince me that there were any women sheriffs and/or deputies or women bank tellers in the wild west days. The acting is deplorable. Where did they get the mayor and his wife...some Disney movie? And who's idea was it to bring Bill (David Carradine's character from Kill Bill) back to life and send him back in time to the wild west? Carradine doesn't have much to lose by starring in this film. He's already at the end of his career. But for the countless young actors and actresses who made the bitter error of choosing this vehicle as a ladder climbing notch in their belts have opted for a bullet hole in their careers. I'm going to try to make it through the balance of this film and return it shamefully to my local Blockbuster store. But I highly recommend this film for file 13. You know, the round file...the trash.....