|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Index||51 reviews in total|
121 out of 127 people found the following review useful:
Just How Bad Can A Film Be?, 12 August 2004
Author: SunRock17 from Boston, MA
...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.
102 out of 104 people found the following review useful:
Wow... This was bad, 25 October 2004
Author: gwmindallas from Dallas, TX
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.
92 out of 97 people found the following review useful:
This is the worst movie ever made, 8 November 2004
Author: Christopher Murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org) from Orlando, Fla.
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.
69 out of 78 people found the following review useful:
oh-my-god!, 25 January 2005
Author: johnnewyork from New York
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.
67 out of 80 people found the following review useful:
I own this movie, 16 January 2005
Author: clockhound2000 from United States
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"
43 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
What a waste!, 6 January 2006
Author: rjs48 from houston, texas
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?
45 out of 48 people found the following review useful:
Don't be misled by slick packaging; this movie is terrible., 22 May 2004
Author: cohencha from New Jersey
*** This review may contain 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.
50 out of 60 people found the following review useful:
good idea, but a bad, very bad movie, 2 September 2006
Author: Gary from victoria, tx
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!
42 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
Worst movie I have ever seen, the cover is the best thing about it. Don't be deceived like I was!, 1 September 2004
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!
36 out of 48 people found the following review useful:
One-Man Show, 14 October 2004
Author: guilfisher from New York City
In this 2003 student-like film, you'll see the name Mraovich
throughout. I guess it's all in the family, eh? Holly Mraovich in a
small role, Chris Mraovich and Robert Mraovich writing original music.
Sam Mraovich stars, directs, writes (script and music), does the
casting as well as the cinematography and editing along with Chris
Mraovich. Wow, Sam, you did take on a lot of responsibility. You must
have felt this was something that needed to be seen. I do congratulate
you on your efforts. Their aren't enough young people venturing into
making original films these day.
First of all, get a good story. Do some more research in choosing your selections. If you write your own, get more than one opinion before filming. As an actor, I felt you could have done better. If you're going to go naked, go naked. I felt there was much uncomfortable posing on your part. Too bad that your co-star, Jamie Brett Gabel, wasn't naked. For he was something to look at. Nudity can be exciting when photographed well. It wasn't in this flick. Even in your first kissing scene, you seemed stiff and awkward in the delivery. What a natural thing to kiss a beautiful guy like Jamie. I say go for it. I've done some kissing scenes with another guy and enjoyed the closeness of them.
Most of the rest of the cast were bad actors. Not getting good direction for one thing and not able to pull it off for another. As a casting director, you could have done better. But listen, it was your first film, right? You learn from everything you do. Take this lesson and move on to better scripts, less performing and more solid direction. Good luck!
|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|