ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

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

rattenkonigin This movie is truly awful. When one of the reviewers wrote that this film was shot with a Nokia 3200. I thought that this was joke but after watching it, I wouldn't be surprise. I know that it is more than 12 years old and technology has improved a lot, but even with my really cheap Chinese smart phone I could film a better movie then this. The editing is terrible, the sound is terrible, the acting is terrible (the actor that played Ben was okay) the script is terrible, the story is terrible and our "hero" Arthur is just so annoying.However, I would still recommend that you watch this movie, as it is really funny. It is so bad its good material. Also if you want to become a filmmaker, this is an example of how not to do it.

Michael_Elliott Ben & Arthur (2002) BOMB (out of 4) Sam Mraovich wrote, produced, directed, shot, scored and did just about everything else in this gay movie, which many consider the alternate of THE ROOM. In the film Mraovich plays Arthur, a gay man happily in love with his boyfriend Ben (Jamie Brett Gabel) and the two plan on getting married in Hawaii. Sadly, the state overturns their policy on gay marriage so they can't be together and things get even worse when Ben's wife refuses to give him a divorce thinking he's just confused. Things take a far more dangerous turn when Ben's brother is kicked out of his church because Ben is gay and he decides to kill his brother and his mate. Oh, what will Ben and Arthur do? Here's yet another film I first heard about in Michael Adams' "Showgirls, Teen Wolves and Astro Zombies" book and yes, it lives up to its reputation. The connection to THE ROOM really isn't all that fair since that movie was at least so bad that you could laugh at it whereas this one here is just plain bad. I guess we can give Mraovich a little credit considering how much he did to get this film made but sadly the hard work didn't pay off anywhere. The film really is a complete mess and we can start with the story itself, which is just so silly and over-the-top that you can never take it serious. Even worse is some of the dialogue and especially during the scenes where the righteous brother seeks advice from the "higher up" about his gay brother. There are many bad sequences here including one "romantic" sequence, which is just downright bad from the word go. Even worse are the performances, which are among some of the worst that you're going to see in any movie no matter the subject or genre. The continuity errors here are also quite shocking and worse than anything you'd see in an Edward D. Wood, Jr. movie. One example has Arthur going to an interview wearing a blue shirt and shorts but when he walks through the door he's all of the sudden wearing a black shirt. One scene he talks about his male lawyer but in the next scene we meet the lawyer and it's a woman. There are many other issues like this throughout the picture. Speaking of Ed Wood, you might want to really compare this to GLEN OR GLENDA? since you have a filmmaker trying to tell a serious story about his own issues.

tfxraven Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you.

chiliwaterboy I don't know what it is about this movie- director Sam Mraovich somehow messed up just about every little aspect in this movie. I would normally say that this is a movie that should not exist, but this movie may be the most important of all time. This movie should exist for the sole purpose of being without a doubt 'The Worst Movie Ever Made'. I've seen bad movies in my lifetime, but this somehow breaks what I considered bad into something much more hard to imagine.Everything in this movie is hilarious, but the single funniest thing is that Mraovich himself considers this to be a great movie.Oh wow...