Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.

The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.

The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"

Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot!

Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Make no bones about it. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie. It's cliched the whole way, not very funny, predictable, and illogical. Let's start at the beginning: characters. There's the boring, luckless guy - giving Stiller another notch in his boring, luckless guy belt - the allegedly wild, but in reality just fairly normal, love interest - whom Aniston plays well, but really needed no effort to do so - the fat, jovial friend, and then the assortment of cliches: an annoying daredevil Australian guy, a confident Spanish guy, etc. The storyline: the beginning is slightly unusual, but thereafter goes into the standard any-movie style, with every plot turn as predictable as your average knock-knock joke. The biggest problem was that Stiller's character's "development" really seemed to come from nothing - like your average school play, the writers knew where he started and where he ended, but didn't put enough stock into properly telling the middle bit. Finally, the alleged 'jokes' were nothing but highly watered down versions of standard gross-out humour; there was a regulation chunder scene, sweaty fat men, etc.

In conclusion, the simple fact about this movie is that learning the meaning of the word 'shart' was the only good thing. Hamburg really dished up a dog's dinner here, and the sugar coating of Stiller and Aniston may have lured the viewers, but the taste left at the end was just as rancid.

Final comment: This film may have been dreadful, but Aniston still picked a better between-Friends-seasons movie than Kudrow's odious 'Marci X.'

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
"Perhaps we can arrange a meet. " "Where are you now? " "I'm sitting in my office. " "I doubt that. " "Why would you doubt that? " "If you were in your office right now we'd be having this conversation face-to-face. "

Bourne remains street tough, and elusive. Only his inhuman resilience leads the film a little too far into fantasy. Conversation is macho, to the point with only shards of Bond type gallows humour. Its all about the action.

The feeling that there is something going on at another level to the world we live in is what the trilogy coveys so well. A scene set in Waterloo with a Guardian journalist does this to great effect. There is no meeting of worlds - you are in it or just a superfluous body.

If the shaky cam doesn't annoy you too much, enjoy this film and hope they somehow keep the franchise going.