Ham & Cheese

This movie was terrible. I don't understand how so many people are leaving such good messages on this unless it is because they are family of the cast and crew. It was obviously wrote in about ten minutes and thrown together with cheap camcorders and actors who couldn't do anything worth being paid. The story is predictable and stupid with characters that aren't even likable. I have seen many worst movies so I give this a 2 out of 10 because its still terrible. Not a good way to waste an afternoon you are better off watching something else even if this is on TV for free sometime. Defanitely not worth paying to see at the movies- trust me on that one! The weighted IMDb rating is right on for this film at between 2 to 4 out of ten.

To put this film in perspective you must understand this about Canadian film: stories like this don't get made here. Stories about sex with the dead or badly maimed? Sure. Stories about allegedly charming Maritimers? Definitely. Stories about sex with allegedly charming dead Maritimers? Well, not yet, but just wait. Which is to say that although this country churns out more than its fair share of world-class comedians such as Mike Myers, Jim Carrey, Martin Short and the late John Candy, we don't make movies that showcase this talent. So Ham & Cheese gets full marks for attempting something so bold as a mockumentary in a land where government-funded agencies favour creepy. That said, thinking back on some of the scenes in H & C, there's plenty of creepy here. Such as the scenes in which Mike Beaver's character joins a fringe festival acting troupe, which includes a cancer patient, a silent fat guy and the omnisexual leader. Seriously whacked out stuff — having sex with the earth? I would argue Beaver's story and performance, though the guy has that lovable lug thing going, is the weaker of the two, falling back on Waiting for Guffman-like parody. Beaver's choice to play the guy as a Lennyesque retard backfires, the character is more pathetic than funny. On the other hand, Jason Jones should be coming to a American theatre soon. He's that good. His performance seems to fit between old Harry Shearer SNL skits and Steve Carell in Anchorman. There are a few scenes — the one in which he auditions for a mattress ad using an Aussie accent and the one in which he plays an extra on a cop drama — are particularly memorable. They also seem to bring out the best film-making — the director edits them to maximum effect, and finds a happy medium between funny and sad. Kudos also to the filmmakers for paying attention to detail. At the beginning of Mike Beaver's story there is a shot of a poorly punctuated wooden lawn sign that is indicative of the culture of small-city Ontario — The Wolanski's. Perfect. The picture also transcends its genre and has something to say about the acting craft and show business, and what it has to say is ppppmph!

I recommend that you skip this movie if you want to see a good comedy or a good drama or a good anything really. I completely disagree with all of the other comments that are posted here in the review section. When I saw this film in Toronto at the rep theater I know that we were not alone in not liking this film one bit. A couple people even walked out about three quarters threw. I recognized a lot of talented people in this movie but the material they have to work with was obviously not thought out very well and there are plot holes you can drive a truck through like the big one being why are these two hacks acting like they are and how on earth do they think they will succeed? What are they even trying to do? Samantha Bee is in this film and fans of the Daily Show will recognize her but her part is very small. Lots of recognizable people in it but they are unfortunately all in small roles. Or maybe it is fortunate because if they are in big roles with such bad material it would make their image less to me. The two actors playing the leads in the film (2 guys who are trying to make it big and become stars) aren't big names or anything and I was not impressed but we should give them credit or O should say not blame them too much because they did not have good material to work with, like I said before. The big problems I think were the direction and most of all the script which seems like it was written in a few hours by drunken high school drama class who thought it would be fun to make a movie. I was literally squirming in my seat by the end of this one to get out of there but did not walk out I have never walked out of a movie but this one was close. Don't waste your time on this movie you will regret it. Trust me. Or if you do watch it in the first five or ten minutes and see how bad it is go ahead and turn it off because trust me it does not get better that's what I was hoping for.

For someone to bully-pick on this film, calling it terribly acted or weak, is someone who can't possibly know the first thing about film making and/or is totally missing the point. Of course it's bad, it's SUPPOSED to be bad! But the idea is that it's so bad it's lovable. The Variety reviewer said it best (and I quote verbatim): "A mockumentary that rarely lets up in the laugh department, "Ham & Cheese" is a must-see for anyone with the smallest thesping aspirations. High degree of face recognition with veterans of "Kids in the Hall" and other northland tube shows on board, probably means that a vid-shot effort would be worth a film transfer for distribs looking to take a change on a potential cult classic." This was NOT shot on camcorders and written in 10 minutes, as it would not have even qualified for a Variety review, let alone be able to amuse countless festival audiences that it did...

And just so that I am keeping it completely honest, I do think that the production of Richard's play overstays its welcome in the storyline, but that's about the only aspect that falls flat in the entire movie. Otherwise, how could one not help but cheer for these funny underdogs with a dream? I don't suppose that the one person I've seen giving harsh comment on Ham & Cheese liked The 40 Year Old Virgin, either? Lighten up!

This is the worst movie I have ever seen. Who are all of these people that are leaving the comments that say how good they think this movie is? There is no way anybody except somebody who is in this movie or there families can with a straight face say this movie is funny at all. It looks like it was shot on a high school video yearbook camcorder and the dialog is so bad it is like it was written by a bunch of fifth graders while they were skipping English class. I am sick and tired of these awful Canadian movies that make other Canadian movies look bad. How do they even get made? It's like the government will give money and film rights to anybody who can make a movie for less than $500. If you want to see a good Canadian comedy I recommend you go see something like Phil the Alien. One of the guys in this movie is also in Phil the Alien. I don't blame the people in this movie for it being so bad. It is just an awful script and bad directing. In my opinion this video is not even worth watching for free on TV let alone renting. Avoid at all costs!