Ham & Cheese

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!

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!

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!

I bought this movie for 2.99 at Blockbuster thinking there is no way I will regret it because it costs less than renting a movie and it has Dave Foley and Scott Thompson of The Kids In The Hall in it.

Don't be fooled because Foley and Thompson are both in it for about a minute each. I bet they wish they didn't even do that much in it because the movie is terrible.

The worst part is the guy who plays the chubby mentally challenged guy who wants to be an actor..... the other guy in the movie also plays a stupid guy who wants to be an actor but the chubby one wins the award for worst acting ever. Sitting for an hour and a half while a guy pretends to be brain damaged so badly that he must be brain damaged in real life is not my idea of a good time. I still don't know how I managed to watch the movie all the way to the end.

Here is a typical scene the chubby stupid guy would do. "Hey chubby stupid guy I am directing this play." "Duh ...... okay." "Do you know how to act?" "Duh ..... yeah sure. I can act." "Okay then read this page." "Duh .... what's acting? Duh I'm stupid. Remember how I was stupid and didn't understand things an hour ago? Well it is still exactly the same now. You're not getting bored of this yet are you?" The other guy at least gets a smile if not a laugh for the Scott Thompson scene. Thompson's reactions to his awful acting where he does everything wrong he possibly could are very funny and he ends up attacking the guy, but like I said this is just like one minute in a whole hour and a half film.

The other characters are blah blah blah. Samantha Bee from the Daily show is in it and not bad but only in a few scenes, it would help if there were more with her or especially with Foley and Thompson. Foley was okay but his scenes were with the Chubby guy so they were ruined by his brain damaged act. An actual scene with Foley goes, the chubby guy reads a bad scene and Foley is an acting teacher, "How was that read?" "It was terrible, you should quit etc etc", "Duh...... so should I read it again?" IF that sounds annoying you are right. This movie is annoying and pretty much nothing happens in it. Two bad actors want to make it big and neither of them make it. That's the whole story so why an hour and a half? Good question I don't know either.

The last guy who reviewed this movie hated it so much that I feel that I must speak in defense of the film.

Granted, I may be a little predisposed to liking this movie since I live in Canada and work in the acting profession. I not only seem to be in the prime target demographic of the film, but being an actor in Canada, I also recognized just about every performer in it. (noteables include, as mentioned cameos by Scott Thompson and Dave Foley, as well as Daly Show Correspondents Samantha Bee and Jason Jones)

THE POINT of this movie is that the ACTING SUCKS. That's the point. Some people will get it, and some people just plain wont. There are many deliberately awkward moments in the film (in the tradition of British comedy giant Ricky Gervais) which many people will not like... ...but many people will find hilarious.

Bottom line. You'll be more likely to enjoy the movie if you're Canadian, specifically from Southern Ontario. If you know what "Marineland" is, you'll love it. If you liked "The Office" (British) you'll probably like the movie. If you're intoxicated in any way, you'll probably like the movie.

Or you'll hate it as much as the last guy.