Simply A Masterpiece

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I almost feel bad for mocking this film. It's so amateurishly poor that I can't help but feel like I'm kicking it while its down. Its like laughing at a kid in a wheelchair. But good lord, this one just transcends "bad". Its about the a gay couple who want desperately to get married, but the law and one of their brothers stands in the way of their happiness- not a bad basic idea, really, and in the right hands, it could have been a very important film about acceptance and putting ones own petty intolerances aside for the sake of other peoples happiness. But it's not in the right hands. It's in the hands of writer/director/producer/composer/star Sam Mraovich. Who is Sam Mraovich? Well, that depends on who you ask. If you ask Sam Mraovich who Sam Mraovich is, you'll be told he's a true visionary and a cinematic genius who dared to dream. But if you ask any of the few people who've actually heard of him who Sam Mraovich is, you'll be told he's a delusional airhead with no grasp of even the most basic techniques of filmmaking or storytelling, who probably got kicked out of the glee club in high school for being too flamboyant and annoying.So why is Ben and Arthur so bad? Well firstly it's hard to take a film about intolerance seriously when your star embodies every negative gay stereotype you could think of, and then some. Secondly, its even harder to take a film seriously when it's shot on the kind of camera people buy to film kids birthday parties and family trips to Disneyland. Look Sammy, I know the purse string must have been tight on this film, but Hell, even Tommy Wiseau shelled over enough for a decent camera. And really, what else is there to say? We have a supposed homophobe who greets people at the door wearing a fluffy pink bathrobe. We have a Christian minister who also seems to believe in karma, a crazy ex-wife who seems to believe becoming a lesbian will make her gay husband come back to her, a square jawed Adonis who totally goes for short, fat balding men, and a finale that truly has to be seen to be believed. I can't even bring myself to type what happens. Its that horrible. But despite all this, I'd still recommend this film. Why? Because its funny as Hell, thats why!

I love movies, but I have also seen some bad ones as well as bottom of the barrel worthy ones. Ben & Arthur was a movie I stumbled on by chance, and unaware of its dubious reputation I went ahead and watched it. And I regret it, while something MIGHT find some novelty value in it, it is really bottom of the barrel stuff.The story is thinner than a needle thread, and is little more than a series of disconnected scenes, and I probably have got "cringetitis" from the countless number of times I cringed at the terrible dialogue here.Ben & Arthur is also rather badly made, the editing is slapdash and if I was paid £10 for each continuity error and goof I spotted I'd probably be one of the richest women in England by now. The characters are annoying and unlikeable, and the acting is horrendous, of all the acting I've seen in a movie the past month or so only The Room comes close to the atrociousness of the acting here.In conclusion, a terrible film with no redeeming qualities. 0/10 Bethany Cox

I have found it! This is the real deal, the bottom of the barrel, the absolute worst, the nadir of cinema. Ben & Arthur made me do the unthinkable by "honoring" it with a 1 rating on IMDb, something I have never done in the 11 years I have been rating movies on this site. Normally, I try to find at least one redeeming point in any bad film I see, if only to rationalize its merits and save myself face: Even the horrendous "Titanic: The Animated Musical" had at least decent still drawings at the very end. Alas, "Ben & Arthur" was beyond redemption and any hope that one could walk away from the film with something to justify the experience.The fact that IMDb even has an entry for this audiovisual equivalent of excrement frightens me. I believe it did get a screening at a movie theater, it is a feature-length work and its DVD is readily available at several online stores, so I guess it technically qualifies as a "film". Whatever you wish to call this work, everything in it is bad: Acting, writing, direction, editing, music, photography, sound recording, set design, continuity.... I could go on, but other reviewers on this site have already elaborated on this film's numerous flaws, with far better grace and humor.My goodness, even the first few seconds tells you how badly this film will devolve: It features an irrelevant and disgusting background animation for an opening sequence and the use of a gingerly MIDI-recorded rendition of "The Entertainer" for an otherwise ostensibly tragic love story. Scott Joplin should simply come back from the grave and toss the filmmaker into a vat of liquefied iron, which closely resembles the red fluid flowing across the screen. It would've made the opening credits seem more proper.Oh, but the filmmaker, Sam Mraovich. Let me add something that no reviewer has addressed as of yet: Considering he did nearly all of the production duties in this film, he is technically also an "auteur" in the same vein as, say, Stanley Kubrick or Wes Anderson. However, those last two, while often writing and producing their own material, nevertheless saw the benefit of sharing the workload with people that are experts in their respective fields of film production, while also staying involved and informed of progress. Mraovich on the other hand quite literally does all the work in piecing together this wreck, almost surely because he fancied himself as capable of such and not because a lack of appropriate personnel. Fact-checking is non-existent, with Mraovich going as far as screwing up basic Bible facts that even cold-hearted Atheists would recognize. The fact that he also stars in Ben & Arthur as the central protagonist (nudity and all), while providing what is hands-down the worst performance by any actor I have ever seen, reinforces what everyone here already knows: That Mraovich has lost much of his grasp of reality and has no idea of how humans function.(Additionally, even Kubrick usually had his name in only a few credits at most or, in the case of "A Clockwork Orange", in just one card. Mraovich's name is everywhere in Ben & Arthur.)And just what were the actors in this movie thinking of when they signed on to this thing anyway? Anyone with a brain cell would have backed out after reading the first page of the script. Were they doing it out of duty? Maybe they were blackmailed. Were they even paid well? (I would imagine SAG would frown upon paying actors in graham crackers.) Maybe they simply pitied the hopelessly delusional Mraovich.In any case, Ben & Arthur was quite the discovery for me. Wider awareness of this movie could easily set the gay rights movement back to the stone age. Once you are done with this abomination, if you dare brave it, you'll conclude that it belongs in the great Pantheon of Bad Ideas like the Great Leap Forward and The Baseball Network.

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.