Ben & Arthur

By: Scott Cranin
In-House Review - Sep 13 2012

In spite of the obvious deficiencies in both writing and acting, there is practically nothing to recommend in this feature film with gay marriage as its topic. Arthur wants desperately to be married, complete with a legal certificate, while his hunky lover Ben doesn't see the need to drag law into it and is happy with the way things are. Meanwhile across town, Arthur's own brother, Victor, is a religious fanatic obsessed with saving his brother from a sinful lifestyle.

Just as the happy couple finally starts making progress with their wedding plans, Victor shows up with sin on his mind and a in his hand. Ready and willing to do whatever he thinks necessary, Victor pulls the trio into a dramatic chain of events that doesn't end well.

The script meanders all over the map, taking us on trips we didn't know we were on and to mysterious apartments. Some of the acting is just as meandering. A few of the actors stumble on their lines. The sets and costumes all appear to be of gay West Hollywood, but some of the actors/locations are supposed to be born-again Christians! Putting aside this, the story was at times coherant, until the very end when it lost all sense of reason. But the cover photo is wonderful, isn't it?

By: Amos Lassen

"Ben and Arthur"
What a Bomb!!
Amos Lassen
Those of you that follow my reviews know that I never give anything a really bad review. Well, here comes my first really awful really awful review of a really awful film. "Ben and Arthur" has just ranked as my al time worst film (and that is saying something). Usually when something is really bad, I choose not to say anything but in this case this film is so bad that I am afraid it could really hurt our cause. There is no acting, no production, no story and the movie has no value. I always find something good to say about whatever I see, but I have finally found an exception. I like to thank someone for the effort made-usually the director or the writer or the editor, the producer or an actor. In "Ben and Arthur" they are all the same person (and I hope he doesn't come looking for me). He gives himself two credits before the main title and then about 15 more before the movie starts-this Sam Mraovich (with a name that can't be pronounced).
I will never understand how this movie ever got made. It is so bad that it makes "Ishtar" look like a classic. In fact I am relegated to use one of my favorite Yiddish words to describe it-it is a piece of "drek".
There are movies that are so bad that you can have a good laugh when watching them but the only time I laughed was when it was over and then I laughed at myself for watching the entire fiasco.
Some of the mistakes are just inexcusable. For example, the airport in Vermont sits amid Palm trees. Then there was the time that Ben without a shirt on was talking on the phone one second and the next second he had a shirt on and the camera did not even pan away. The office of the priest consisted of a card table-give me a break!
Now there is a decent story line but for the life of me I cannot remember wha it was and I am not about to watch it again in order to find out. Once was more than enough. It just goes to show that a good idea can become a very, very bad movie.
Aside from Sam whatchamacallit, there is a slew of other Mraovich family members. Sam stars, etc. but there is also holy Mraovich in a small role, Chris and Robert Mraovich wrote the music, Chris also edits and worked a camera so obviously Sam felt very strongly about the project. I bet Poppa Mraovich financed it and Momma was the caterer.
So why am I still writing this review? I suppose it is because I time watching the movie so I might as well waste time tearing it apart. I will not say do not see it-instead I say to see it so you will always have something to compare really good movies with.

By: yawnmower

Don't judge this DVD by its cover! You might think there's a great story inside, or at least a sexy one with enough pretty people to make it palatable. Not so: there are only two attractive men in the film. One is Jamie Brett Gabel who graces the cover, and the other is the exquisite Arthur Huber who plays a private eye and is on screen for about one minute. Just about every other character is completely insane, and there is more gunplay in this little drama than at the OK Corral. One burning question remains: why the beautiful, muscular Ben would live with, ever-apologize to, much less want to marry a peevish nerd -- except he's the writer/director. In some hands, Reel Life is very, very different from Real Life.

By: Jon

By: John Nail

Things I learned from watching "Ben & Arthur": 1) FedEx now accepts passengers. Overnight yourself today! 2) Vermont: The OTHER Sunshine State. 3) If you want to change someone's sexuality, simply boil water, transfer it to a shampoo bottle and then tape it to the intended's apartment door. Don't worry about instructions--he'll know what to do from there. 4) Next time you have someone over for dinner, serve graham crackers! People love 'em. 5) When calling about job opportunities and you start asking about apartments, keep going. Hopefully the audience won't notice. 6) Cardboard is a versatile material. Why, you can build an entire church set with it. 7) Someone getting you down, say a gay husband, a no-talent gay activist lawyer or your gay brother? Get yourself a , girl! 8) Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's climactic scene in "Scarface" is a laugh riot when re-enacted by a doughy gay man. 9) For the last time: A hunky guy on the DVD cover does not guarantee on-screen sexiness. When will I learn? 10) "Ben & Arthur's" writer, producer, director, star, cam-corder operator Sam Mraovich deserves to be called the new Ed D. Wood, Jr. Perhaps decades from now his ineptness will be celebrated just as Wood's has.

By: Ric

By: Pabby

Along with all the other reviewers I believe this is the worst gay-themed film I have purchased on DVD. As the others here I bought because of the blurb by Culture Q - they should be ashamed of themselves for this terrible movie: bad script, bad acting, and again that old style of the gays always must die in the end of the shame of being gay. What a rip off!!

By: gaymovieviewer

Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not 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 1,300 films (86% on them on DVD) and of those, 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 is even slightly believable). 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 image 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. As another reviewer said, 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 CONECTION 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. At $14.95 this video would have been overpriced; at $30 it's highway robbery. DO NOT BUY THIS PICTURE! It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it.

By: Jman

I am guessing that more money was spent on the packaging than the actual movie. There is no excuse for a movie this bad being marketed as if it were a professional release. It makes buyers nervous about buying any gay titles at all. Shame on the film maker! But obviously he knows his market--put a great looking guy on the cover and the gay men come running.

By: Etaussie

By: marty

i will NEVER buy a video based on the breath-takingly humpy bare-chested hunk on the cover...

this is another in my collection of "how not to make a movie" movies...

oh, great and mighty scott cranin, if only i'd taken my eyes of the picture long enough to read your ENTIRE review, i'd be several dollars richer right now!!