User Reviews (56)

  • gwmindallas25 October 2004
    Wow... This was bad
    This movie was laughably bad. A friend rented it from Netflix and made me watch it. There are so many gaffes and goofs that it's impossible to even bother getting to know the characters and the plot. How about these for example...

    The "Vermont Airport" surrounded by palm trees

    Ben's miraculously appearing shirt during a phone conversation

    The priest's palatial office... complete with a folding card table desk

    There is a decent story hidden behind a very bad movie. But even if you look past the technical flaws, you'll find horrid acting and casting. I was most tickled by the casting of a flamboyantly gay actor to play the right-wing religious zealot brother. His opening scene, sitting in his immaculate apartment, stroking his kitty cat, was hilarious.

    I applaud the writer/director/producer/editor/star/caterer/cast dentist/composer (and whatever else he did on this move) for actually getting a movie like this distributed. If you have nothing better to do, it could be a fun group movie or even the basis of a drinking game but don't rent it for a powerful story about homophobia and gay marriage.
  • SunRock1712 August 2004
    Just How Bad Can A Film Be?
    ...well, pop this into the DVD, waste an hour and a half of your life that you will never get back, and find out.

    Acting? What acting?

    Production values? ...Production? ...Values?

    Story? Don't get me started.

    After many years of posting on IMDb, I never thought I would see a film so bad that I truly wished for a lower rating than one. I always have found at least a reason or two to see merit - if only in the intent or the effort of the writer, the director, the cast, or the producer?

    In this case, they're all the same guy (!) who really needs to get a handle on the fact, at least as demonstrated by this worthless waste of video tape, that he has no talent. I mean it would be a reasonable excuse if this were some junior high schooler's "production" for his first cinema class, but the referenced "artist" behind this dreck was twenty-six at the time of this miscarriage.

    Just how did this ever get made? Who in their right mind ever wrote a check for this? Moreover, don't let the box cover fool you: there's not even anything that remotely resembles a good sex scene or any good "exposure" of the hunk on that cover.

    Two final items: there was one second when this "film" had redeeming value: the aforementioned "talent" gets roundly punched out by his lover. I cheered! And, I did learn one thing from this "film.". There are times when something is so very bad that it is, indeed, truly very funny. But not in any comical manner; it's just sadly humorous. Very sadly humorous.
  • rjs486 January 2006
    What a waste!
    A blank videotape these days can be had for 99 cents. This film was shot on videotape, and believe me, it was 99 cents wasted. The film is ineptly written, ineptly directed, ineptly acted, and ineptly designed. The same folding table shows up in several of the interiors, indicating that the Mraovich family (whose names are all over this venture) must not own much furniture. The priest's inner sanctum set looks like painted cardboard, and features the ever present folding table.

    With a story that wants to be earnest, the director created a slow-moving, poorly acted melodrama. Plot "twists" make no sense (why murder the never-before-or-after-seen secretary?) And if someone takes a bullet in the shoulder, shouldn't there be a wound or some blood at least?

    I found myself thinking that someone said, "Hey, I got this video camera at the Goodwill store. Let's make a movie!" How did this make it to the DVD market?
  • Christopher Murphy8 November 2004
    This is the worst movie ever made
    I can't believe I'm dignifying this junior high school quality nonsense with a comment, but I've got time to kill and nothing else to do. The star/director/writer, etc. has ZERO talent in all these areas. The guy who played Ben is a hottie. This was shot on VHS in a couple of people's apartments. The camera/lighting guys must have been the director's nephews or something. The quality of everything was dreadful. This is an unwatchable video. I thought it might be funny bad, but it's unbearable bad. What an ego fest for the sorry guy who played Arthur. How did this home movie find distribution? Is there really a market for this? Arthur tries to be funny and dramatic and playful/charming. He's a total loser. He had to make his own film because no one else would. Brief glimpses of Ben's chest are the only good thing about this home movie. The love scene is achingly silly. The wedding scene was dumb. Then the ex-wife suddenly shows up with her hair and waves a gun around for more "drama!" This is an abomination. I bet the director/writer/star boasts about it to this day. He is delusional.
  • tonymurphylee18 August 2008
    I think I finally have a final choice for my pick of the worst movie ever made. I mean every word of this review.
    Holy crap this movie was bad. I watched it just as a joke. It isn't even so bad that it's good in an unintentional way. This film seemed to be designed to personally make me angry. It worked really well at doing that. It's as if the people who made this just took all of the really annoying stuff about the movie PRIEST, added in a bunch of ugly dudes, took out anything interesting, funny, or even remotely sexy and clever out of the concoction, and then added in a bunch of old rotten cheese. That's all this is. Cheese. There isn't a single person this film could possibly connect to. There isn't any universe this film could possibly take place in. Why can't a film like this just be about enjoying life and being happy? Why did they have to make this already stupid idea for a film even more ridiculous than it already is? Why couldn't they at least even tried to make it an okay film, or even a B-movie. Now that I think of it, what they hell were they trying to do with this film? I watched it expecting a campy love story and instead I got some boring student project about some idiot who has to find the strength and courage to marry his boyfriend while his annoying Christian brother tried to destroy it all!!! No, I'm not joking. That's what it's about. Does that sound good? This film is pretty ignorant against people of the Christan religion, with it's stereotyping of all Christians being loudmouthed, rude, and hellbent on making as many people as miserable as possible. A lot of Christian people I know would never speak or act like these freaks. The film, however, is just as unfair and ignorant to the gay community as well. These have got to be the most tastelessly crafted stereotypical gay men since the guy on the radio station on that ROADKILL video game. It's so nerve wracking and simply irritating to the point that I wasn't able to fully pay attention to this film. The makers of this train-wreck had no strategy for set design, acting, camera angles, lighting, script, authenticity, or an idea to make this entertaining or interesting. There isn't even a single sex scene, or at least not a believable one. Jamie Brett Gabel was the only guy in the film that looked any good at all, but his good looks were sadly put to waste. This is trash. In a perfect world, this film would get voted a 0.0. It's worth 0 as a film alone. A mentally handicapped nun who is blind, deaf, and has tiny little bones for arms and legs and whose face is located on her armpit could write, direct, and produce a better film, and she'd probably be a better actor as well. the fact that this film exists is a crime against the word "film" itself. This film is so bad that other films should be ashamed of being available in the same watchable format. I could put a broom in a chair and then record it with a camera and then stop the film and then replace it with a mini x-mas tree and then record that and I've already made a film that will always be better than BEN & ARTHUR by at least half. There are only two things worse than death. Torture and watching BEN & ARTHUR. I'm a homosexual and I will probably be the gayest person you will ever meet if you ever met me, and I don't think I've ever been more offended by an entire film than I was by the first five seconds of this film alone. If this movie was a mistake, I will personally find a way to change the famous phrase "It's okay to make mistakes" to "It's okay to make mistakes unless that mistake was BEN & ARTHUR." You know how people always say things like, "Good things come out of everything!"? I think that BEN & ARTHUR was primarily invented so that there could be something on this earth that nothing good would ever come out of. To call this movie the worst movie I've ever seen would be giving it WAY too much credit. It's as if this film were designed just so that it could qualify in a category of it's very own. There are good movies, there are bad movies, and then there's BEN & ARTHUR. This is BEN AND ARTHUR.
  • cohencha22 May 2004
    Don't be misled by slick packaging; this movie is terrible.
    Warning: Spoilers
    Your first clue that this is a cheesy movie is that it was shot on video, not film. The story is convoluted, and the production is amazingly sloppy. Note, for example, that when the title couple are on a plane ostensibly landing in Vermont, where they've gone to celebrate their relationship in a civil union ceremony, the plane is shown coming into an airport surrounded by palm trees. Their ceremony - in Vermont - takes place in a garden of tropical plants, including palms, which wouldn't last five minutes in the New England climate. On yet another airplane trip, the establishing shot depicts a FedEx cargo plane taking off. Presumably they could only afford to travel in steerage. As for the plot, this movie expects you to believe that Victor, the devoutly Christian brother of Arthur, is kicked out of his church when the congregation learns that his BROTHER is gay. Not only that, but the pastor eventually sets Victor up with a hit man to have Ben and Arthur killed "to purge their souls of sin." Apparently no one in this church has ever heard of the Ten Commandments. Were it not for Jamie Brett Gabel, who is surprisingly effective as Arthur, this movie would have no redeeming qualities at all.
  • JJonsey15 July 2007
    Any positive review of this movie is assuredly written by the director/writer/caterer/dog walker of this abomination

    After watching this supposedly gay made film, I suspect someone rounded up a brain damaged half blind neo-nazi and had him make the worst gay film ever, all in some deluded attempt to attack gay culture. I had to stop the movie and call a friend to come over just so I had someone to scoff at when I paused the movie out of shock, disbelief and outrage at such sheer stupidity.

    On top of all the horrible writing and acting and illogical and stupid plot, its just a poorly made film. A dog with a handycam tied to its tail could have churned out better.

    Seriously, after reading the few positive reviews this movie has here, I suspect the writer must have a half a dozen IMDb accounts. Anyone who says this film is even watchable as anything other than a joke, is a liar or being paid heavily to say so.
  • cnogueir2 November 2005
    One of the funniest movies I've ever seen!
    Warning: Spoilers
    I have never posted a review before, but I had to do it for this film! This film is SO bad, I found myself trying to justify how bad it is by trying to think of it as kitsch or parody. But it ISN'T. It is truly, un-self-consciously BAD. This is a serious attempt that flops gloriously. Other reviewers have pointed out the film's many flaws, so I'll try not to repeat these, but I do urge you to see this film. Throughout it I was either speechless, literally gasping with disbelief, or rolling on the floor in hysterics. I haven't had so much fun watching a film in years. In fact, I'm going to try to get all my friends to see it because it's the kind of movie that needs to be shared.

    My favorite parts: -- When Arthur auditions to be a go-go boy (his dancing is unbelievable) -- The gratuitous nudity (the director/leading actor just had to get a nude shot in) -- The preacher's office with its cardboard and crayon rendition of Christ -- Of course, the famous wedding scene with the palm trees and the forgotten rings (what narrative function does this play?!?) -- The ex-wife's wrestling match with Ben to get possession of her gun -- The detailed sequence wherein Arthur kills the preacher; he apparently burns him up with this incredibly measly match -- Yes, the gay religious-fanatic brother with his bleached hair and WeHo fashions -- And, my favorite, the use of Joplin's "The Entertainer" as the opening soundtrack and "Pachebel's Canon in D Major" as the closing soundtrack! -- the list goes on and on -- a MUST SEE!!!
  • sinister_prog25 July 2008
    Unfeasably bad
    There is absolutely nothing in this movie that shows even the tiniest scrap of talent. Nobody in it has ever tried acting before, even the extras in the coffee shop look as if they've been glued in place. Nothing looks rehearsed.The film quality is terrible. Most of the 'action' takes place in narrow corridors or apartments with the cameraman crammed in as an afterthought, swinging some cheapo camera backwards and forwards between 'actors' as they deliver their lines. No tripod and no proper microphone either, there sound quality is terrible. Even 'Manos' fares better than this, at least they had proper equipment. What plot there is simply gets lost in the production mess.

    Stick to home videos, preferably made by some 5 year kid trying out the video feature on daddy's new camera phone. You will be in for a long search to find a movie more inept than this.
  • ThomasGauthier1 September 2004
    Worst movie I have ever seen, the cover is the best thing about it. Don't be deceived like I was!
    This film was the worst film I have ever viewed. It was like a "homework assignment" for a film class. It totally misses the mark when it comes to the "message" it is TRYING to relay. Characters are over exaggerated, poor acting and as for a plot...well it is utterly ridiculous. The cover shot is what made me think it may be a decent film, the co-actor is handsome and that's about it. Moral of this movie: NEVER JUDGE A MOVIE BY IT'S COVER! Save your time, money and energy and make your own home movie and you will be far better off than I. It was painful to watch and quite frankly I am surprised that anyone would spend money to make and distribute it!
  • jmorris2366 November 2005
    The Worst Film I've Ever Seen
    Warning: Spoilers
    Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly – I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right – we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews – I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it.
  • johnnewyork25 January 2005
    If an auteur gives himself 2 credits before the main title and about 15 more credits before the movie starts, and the first shot shows the auteur rolling around on a bed in lycra bike shorts, it won't be a surprise to observe that said auteur has the kind of body that should never be seen in spandex. The kind of look that might be useful to a homosexual aversion therapist.

    Others have given this thing the dishing it deserves. For me the most pitiable moment came when the trip from LA was signified by a plane landing at what appeared to be LAX; and the return was signified by a shot of a Fedex cargo plane.
  • Jason Evans18 March 2012
    Warning: Spoilers
    Finally, a film that isn't afraid to confront the real problems facing homosexual men in the 21st century. Every year, thousands of gays are forced to resort to murder, arson and incest in order to thwart their hyper-religious homicidal family's members' evil schemes, and Ben & Arthur tackles this issue head-on.

    The word "genius" doesn't quite do justice to writer/producer/assistant producer/director/actor Sam Mraovich's filmmaking talents. As an innovator and risk-taker, Mraovich bravely chose to eschew conventional methods, and filmed his masterpiece using a Nokia 3200 (the same mobile phone was also used to create the film's musical score), thus giving the film a delightful shaky feel - as if it were being recorded by a drunken Parkinson's sufferer.

    The quality of acting is magnificent - so few actors these days are brave enough to stare directly into the camera, or have the skills to recite their lines as if they hadn't even read the script. Each character is beautifully written: Arthur (played by Mraovich himself) is the hero of the piece, a simple man who washes paper cups for a living and is struggling with a terrible mental illness that causes irrational outbursts, murderous tendencies, and an inability to run like a normal human. His lover, Ben, is a master of deceit - he has managed to be in a cohabiting relationship with Arthur for the last five years whilst being secretly married to woman who was completely in the dark about his other life. How Ben pulled off this elaborate deception is never elaborated upon, as master-director Mraovich really knows how to create a sense of intrigue. Arthur's brother, Victor, is the main antagonist - a fanatical Christian who attends a papièr-maché church. He is portrayed brilliantly by Michael Harboush, famous for his role as "Hospital Intern learning from Michael Mancini" in Melrose place.

    Sam Mraovich's commitment to equal-opportunities is demonstrated by the casting of a recently-lobotomised stoner as Ben and Arthur's lawyer - a brave move that could have easily backfired, the actress managed to overcome her limitations and deliver an astounding verbatim performance - you can hardly tell that she had had her frontal lobe removed just 3 hours prior to filming!

    I don't understand the criticism that this film has received - I imagine that those negative posters must either be embittered homophobes, or just too limited to fully comprehend Mraovich's genius.
  • ccaudle24 July 2008
    Mother of God this was so awful
    I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.

    I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.

    I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.

    This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.

    I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

    On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this!
  • clockhound200016 January 2005
    I own this movie
    Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"
  • Marvin Jones27 April 2004
    One-Man-Show is Turgid Melodrama
    Like many young writers who believe passionately in their cause, Sam Mraovich clearly hasn't a clue about what motivates those he sees as "the enemy". Therefore he writes his villains as irrational monsters acting out of sheer evil, not as human beings with their own concerns, wrong as they might be. Ben and Arthur are two gay guys being menaced by one's religious zealot brother, who plots with his priest to murder his brother in order to "free his soul". Meanwhile the other guy is being stalked by an ex-wife who would rather see him dead than lose him to another man. In more skillful hands, this could be the stuff of a wickedly funny black comedy, but Mraovich apparently believes he's writing serious drama. I don't think he even sees the humor in a credit list in which "Sam Mraovich" is practically the only name that appears anywhere, except for the occasional "Chris Mraovich". Sam wrote, produced, directed, stars, photographed, edited, and undoubtedly swept the floors when he was finished. Unfortunately he doesn't do any of the tasks which are visible on the screen very professionally (I don't know how he was at sweeping up). And in one final lapse of judgement, the plain and slightly dumpy Mraovich, sandwiched between two extremely attractive actors, gives HIMSELF the film's only nude scene! Bad choice, Sam!
  • Gary2 September 2006
    good idea, but a bad, very bad movie
    Ben & Arthur COULD have been a 10. Sam Mraovich wrote, directed, stared, and produced this movie. Sam should have given his idea to a good writer, director, and left the acting to somebody who could act. this is a good example of one person controlling the whole production. there was nobody to tell him, "Sam this is bad, really bad".

    Jamie Brett Gabel's acting was the only good point, but he could have been so much better with a good director, and better actors to work with.

    This movie is so bad i think Sam Mraovich should be tied to a chair and made to watch this movie (twice). the acting and direction was so bad, this movie was turned into a comedy. you just had to laugh, and in the wrong places.

    A second good point....this would make a great date movie. after the first two minutes you would quit watching the movie and pay more attention to your date!
  • DarthVader2815 July 2009
    Congratulations Sam This is the number 1 worst film i ever saw.
    I was looking on Imdbs bottom 100 because i thought id never seen anything as bad as plan 9 from outerspace or Roller Ball remake, I was wrong. Ben and Arthur has beaten both.

    This out of the many countless amount of movies I've seen is the number one worst film on the i ever saw. Bad Directing ,Bad Characters ,Horrible Acting ,Horrible story There's a reason nobody but Sam ever says anything positive about this film. Sam was a horrible annoying actor but his directing was so bad he may just overthrow Ed Wood.

    The Director should be ashamed of his work unfortunately i have to give it at least 1 star but it deserves - to be continued stars.
  • UneOmeletteFromage20 May 2009
    Hey, how bad can it be? ... VERY BAD.
    Warning: Spoilers
    I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.

    The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.

    The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"

    Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot!

    Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.
  • Gary Brumburgh26 March 2009
    An insult to below-average amateur movie-makers everywhere.
    Sam Mraovich should never be allowed to touch a camera again. If he does he should be arrested on the the very least for petty larceny. Anybody who pays even a dime to rent any of his garbage should file a claim and be compensated. This was innocently my first viewing of his "work"...and it will my last. Ed Wood looks awfully good to me right now.

    When I return this piece of crap to the video store, I will personally ask that it be taken off the shelf. An active supporter of gay cinema, I am incensed and angered that this warped, exceedingly untalented man-child be allowed to distribute and package something like this, with a coltish pretty boy on the cover (Jamie Brett Gabel, who, thankfully, has no other acting credits in IMDb) and an interesting synopsis on the back used as bait, and then market it as a "movie" rental. Trust me, this has no place being on any rack anywhere; it is simply not a movie in any sense of the word. Offensive, irresponsible junk such as this can only be detrimental to the efforts being made to promote and support gay cinema (hell, gay rights in general!) For those tempting to rent this out because of the cover, you WILL be disappointed. Gabel is not as flattering to look at on film as he is on the cover, and he appears once or twice without a shirt -- that's it. Instead, the homely Mroavich inflicts on us his own disgusting, sorry-looking dough-boy nakedness.

    This "thing" he "assembled" is a reverse vanity project for Mraovich. Both he and his friend Michael Habousch (who, I understand, puts out similar sleazy garbage) are terrible in this. Mraovich is purposely posing as a complete no-talent (in all fields), desperate to grab onto any "loser" attention he can for himself. He is to be pitied.
  • Salazar19 January 2009
    Hilariously Bad
    Warning: Spoilers
    Oh man, what was Sam Mraovich thinking? What was anyone who was involved in this "film" thinking? Mraovich is the head of nearly everything of "Ben and Arthur": Director, writer, producer (also EXECUTIVE producer!), caster, lead star- you name it, he did it. And he (Mraovich) sucks more than anyone has ever sucked in every department of film making.

    So what is wrong with this film? Everything. The film is about two gay lovers, Ben (Jamie Brett Gabel) and Arthur (Mraovich- *groan*). Ben and Arthur want to get married in a world where everyone basically hates gay people. To make things worse, Ben's crazy "ex-wife" (they don't exactly divorce), Tammy (Julie Belknap) is steaming mad that Ben's left her for another man and demands Ben that they get back together (saying that she can be gay, too!) and Arthur's Christian devoted, excessively hypocritical, equally batty as Tammy brother, Victor, is hell bent on making Arthur turn straight and then try to kill him after he gets kicked out of his church.

    The film is absolutely chock a block with so many goofs (ie. Ben and Arthur fly to Vermont to get married- they go there on Alaska Airlines and Vermont has palm trees; they fly back on a FedEx cargo plane- hope they were comfy in a wooden crate, plus many, many more) and plot holes to boot (Victor calls killing Arthur "The Final Plan" which later changes to "The Final Deed"; Arthur and the private (intern) detective drive the same car, blah, blah, blah). The "actors" are all very bad and are way, way over the top; the script is laughably horrible(one such example is "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! I make sense, that's who makes sense!") and there so much more wrong with the "movie" that I can't write them all down.

    However, the most laughable yet unbelievable thing about "Ben and Arthur" is that Sam Mraovich thinks that he has created something that is truly fantastic (see his fake reviews for "Ben & Arthur" and obvious comments by him on YouTube.). Mraovich is narcissistic and his arrogance blinds him from seeing how awful anything with his name on it really is.

    So, to conclude, forget every bad film that you claim is the worst movie ever- "Ben and Arthur" will knock them right off that title, even Paris Hilton movies look like "The Dark Knight" compared to the monstrosity known as "Ben and Arthur".
  • sjmogg7023 August 2008
    Truly Awful
    This movie is just truly awful, the eye-candy that plays Ben just can make up for everything else that is wrong with this movie.

    The writer/director/producer/lead actor etc probably had a good idea to create a movie dealing with the important issues of gay marriage, family acceptance, religion, homophobia, hate crimes and just about every other issue effecting a gay man of these times, but trying to ram every issue into such a poorly conceived film does little justice to any of these causes.

    The script is poor, the casting very ordinary, but the dialogue and acting is just woeful. The homo-hating brother is played by the most camp actor and there is absolutely no chemistry between the two lead actors (I think I've seen more passion in an corn flakes ad). The acting is stiff, and the dialogue forced (a scene where the brother is feeding the detective his lines was the highlight).

    I'm just pleased to see that the creator of this train wreck has not pushed any other rubbish out in to distribution, and if he is thinking of doing so, I have some advise - JUST DON'T DO IT.
  • ejonconrad2 March 2011
    You may think you've seen bad movies, but if you haven't seen this, you're wrong
    Warning: Spoilers
    You know you're in for a real treat right from the beginning, as the EZ-Piano version of The Entertainer plays very slowly over the opening credits, who are mostly Sam Mraovich and other people named Mraovich. The direct-to-videotape quality is that of a very mediocre high school film project - made by people who have been held back so many times they're in their mid 20's.

    If you enjoy spotting plot holes, glaring inconsistencies and downright goofs, then this is a movie for you. They start right at the beginning and don't let up for an hour and a half.

    The movie opens as our protagonists, Ben and Arthur, are overjoyed to learn that gay marriage has been legalized in Hawaii. They immediately buy plane tickets, but their hopes are dashed a few hours later when the judge issues a stay against his own ruling (huh?), so they decide instead to go to Vermont (couldn't they have done that before?).

    At this point, Ben confesses that he still needs to divorce his wife. I gather they believe polygamy is legal in Hawaii, because this didn't become a worry until the change of venue. Ben's wife must not have noticed that he moved out and has been living with another man for some time, because she is caught completely off guard both by his revelation that he is gay and by the divorce papers, which she refuses to sign. Ben assures Arthur that he will contact his lawyer to handle it.

    This must be one hell of a lawyer, because they are able to marry just a few days later - among the gently swaying palm trees of Vermont! The ex-wife makes one brief appearance much later in the movie when she shows up and demands - at gunpoint! - that Ben remarry her, but he wrestles the gun away from her and we never see her again.

    The side story involves their rather meager existence. We are told Ben is a licensed nurse, but chooses to work as a dish washer because he "has his music" (nurses can't be musicians?). Arthur works as a waiter in the same restaurant, but quits after a run-in with a mildly rude customer. At this point, he realizes he has no skills and no education, and decides to hit up his estranged brother Victor for money to go back to school. His brother doesn't recognize him, because he hasn't seen him in "like seven years", but when he finds out who he is, immediately establishes himself as a "crazy Christian", by asking Arthur if he has found God yet. Arthur, in an attempt to charm his brother out of the money, tells him to stop with the "religious s&%#". Nevertheless, his brother insists that before he gives them any money both he and Ben must come to see him.

    This is when the movie starts to get really weird. There would be no problem building very sinister villains out of things mainstream churches have actually said and done regarding homosexuality, but this wasn't enough for the writer. He instead opts to introduce "christian" characters (they appear to be Catholic) whose actions are so bizarre and hateful they would make the Westboro Baptist Church blush.

    After not seeing his brother for seven years, Victor becomes completely obsessed with saving his soul. He kills (!!) the lawyer who has been helping them get their marriage recognized in California, but then goes really crazy after he's kicked out of his church for having a gay brother (again,huh?). In desperation, he offers to kill Ben and Arthur. The priest thinks this is a good idea, and hooks him up with a hit man, who only manages to wound Ben. This drives Arthur crazy and he kills the priest by dowsing him with distilled water and setting him on fire (note, at this point he has no evidence the priest was even involved).

    Yada yada, Victor shoots and kills Ben, then forces Arthur to get baptized (which the writer seems to believe Catholics do naked). In the end Victor and Ben shoot each other after doing a gay reenactment of the scene between Tony and his sister in Scarface.

    Oh, did I mention that there's a completely non-sequitur scene where Ben suddenly becomes abusive and punches Arthur (knocking him out) for being a whiny little bitch? No matter, it's just one of the many unintentionally funny parts.

    So congratulations, Tommy Wisceau! Now there's a movie even you can look down on.
  • MartinHafer6 February 2010
    Whoa,...this is a home movie! How did a home movie get listed on IMDb?
    When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch!

    The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue!

    The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess!

    I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!

    By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.

    Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.
  • dannyboy1232 September 2009
    The absolute worst film of all time has finally been discovered.
    Worst film ever, this is a statement that people here on IMDb often throw around. Whether it's an Uwe Boll movie, bad classics like Manos The Hands Of Fate or the latest no brains summer action fest from Michael Bay, people are often quick to jump to the sudden conclusion that on the board they're posting that there is nothing worse in the movie world.

    I envy these people, because they're blissfully ignorant and unaware of how deep the rabbit hole of crap movie making really goes. There are films out there so bad, so hideous, so unintentionally hilarious and so ridiculous that cults form around them to celebrate their awfulness and their discussion boards are the kindest places on the internet due to everyone agreeing unanimously that said film is really that bad.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, i present to you Ben and Arthur, an 85 minute gay epic that is so utterly bad that it's a lot like a violent car crash, you know it's awful but you can't stop looking at it. The brainchild of self proclaimed "hollywood actor, director" and may i add beached whale Sam Mraovich, this film is legendarily terrible. Let me give you a hint of how ego driven this project was. Mr Mraovich not only directed this film, he wrote it, produced it, executive produced it, scored it, edited it and then finally starred in it. This is a man so blinded by his own ego and so believing of his non existent genius that like someone with an ugly child he fails to recognise just how catastrophic his bastard creation really is.

    Everything in this film fails on an epic level, the acting is the worst you will ever witness, the plot is the most ridiculous, the editing and cinematography is the most amateur and even the music is like nails on a chalkboard. I'm aware i've gone on a bit of a tangent here, but please believe me that this film is really as bad as i describe it, i would say this film is horse crap squished into a film reel, but the truth is it wasn't even shot on film, it was shot on a digital camcorder not much better than the one sitting in your closet right now gathering dust. Don't get me wrong, i forgive low budgets for films provided the concept is interesting, for example as much as i disliked it The Blair Witch Project proved that low budgets can still lead to an atmospheric interesting film. Ben and Arthur does not have a good concept to fall back on, even if this film was shot on a budget of 20 million with Hollywoods finest actors it would still suck, the plot is that atrocious, and the characters are even worse. One of the main characters Arthur who is portrayed by non other than Sam Mraovich is one of the most whiny loathsome little turds ever put in a film. You'll dislike him within 5 minutes of the start of the film and by the end of the film that hate will have turned into outright loathing. Apparently Mr Mraovich forgot that we're supposed to root for the hero.

    I don't want to spoil all the gut busting hilarity you'll experience watching this film (which i urge you not to pay for) so i will give you two tame mild examples of how stupid this film is, tame and mild as in amongst the least offending mistakes in the movie. In one cut we hear one of the main characters say how "they know a good lawyer and will give HIM a call" the shot fades out then fades back in and this HIM they spoke of earlier is actually a woman, quite a spectacular mistake to make in post production i think. The second is simple, seconds after seeing this transsexual lawyer the characters are told to fly to Vermont, we then cut to a shot of a plane landing amongst palm trees in a sunny area. I've never been to Vermont personally but i'm certain you won't find any palm trees there.

    Imagine this kind of stupid amateur inconsistency stretched to nearly an hour and a half combined with ridiculous dialogue and plot and then multiply it by 10 and it still won't fully prepare you for Ben and Arthur. Imagine the absolute worst film you've seen in your life and imagine it being even worse and you still won't be on the same level as Ben and Arthur, this film is really that bad.

    However we should be glad in a way, films like this are a true rarity. They give us hope that one day we can become film makers ourselves or that we can be screenwriters. Simply because we'll have a new found sense of confidence due to the fact that we'll know that nothing we produce no matter how amateur could be as much of a suck fest as this.

    The real worst movie of all time has finally been discovered, and it is called Ben and Arthur.
An error has occured. Please try again.