MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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."

Equalizer90-1 Brothers In Arms is a decent attempt at a modern western with a twist.The film does stay quite loyal to the original concept of the western. The surroundings and atmosphere are generally authentic in appearance and the majority of the story doesn't try to steer off into other directions that are inconsequential to the period in time. In other words, no one rides a motorbike and ninjas have no involvement.David Carradine plays Driscoll – a tyrant that has a stranglehold on a dreary western town. He owns everything including the law enforcement. He is a man above the law and fear is his favoured weapon of choice.When a group of robbers come to town with the view of making the bank their next hit, they inadvertently kill Driscoll's son. This slightly scuppers the groups' plans and they must proceed carefully as Driscoll has vowed revenge for the killing of his son.The film may have faults but unlike some movies it doesn't try to over-complicate the story to hide them. The acting is average. The film wasn't made with an Academy Award in mind so I don't think one can be too overly critical.The music throughout the movie is fair with an intended mix of traditional western with some hip-hop style beats mixed in. It's not too overpowering for the theme but it may be irritating for the more sophisticated western viewer. Unfortunately we reach what I believe are the real negatives. The direction of the film is very poor. The film starts heavily with the flashy flashy camera style, jumping from scene to scene really quickly. The trend continues but thankfully for my eyesight it dies out slightly. It does remind me a lot of Michael Oblowitz's work. Some films can pull it all together with amazing action sequences - this does not.This is the factor that annoys me greatest of all. In a western movie one expects a shootout, not just a shootout, at the very least, a good shootout. This is one western movie that does not deliver it in any form. It was like watching grown ups dressed as cowboys run around with toy guns shouting, "bang bang".Director La Marre simply has no idea where to put the camera in the shootouts. In the close one on one confrontation there is no suspense and it's never clear who gets shot - In fact, sometimes its just noise. It is a very weak and shoddy attempt.I'm glad to see a revival of sorts with modern westerns and I find it very difficult to criticise Brothers In Arms too much because with a tweak here and there (granted, one of the tweaks being someone that can shoot action) this really could have been a great film. It must be stated the estimated budget for the film was $1.5m and based on that figure it's a reasonable movie.I certainly think it's worth a watch for some creative inspiration.

Goldfish Soldier 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.

pdesorm 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.