Ben & Arthur

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"

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!

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.

...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.

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?