Ham & Cheese

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!

This movie came out at blockbuster across the street from me like a week ago and Wednesday night I saw it in the used bin for $6.99. I never heard of it but it had Dave Foley and Scott Thompson in it so I thought I would give it a try. I asked the guy behind the counter why it was for sale so quickly and he said they've only been renting one copy per night at most anyway. Still I bought it to see Dave Foley and Scott Thompson and besides Blockbuster has a special right now for 2 movies for $12 and I was already buying "Rise of the Phoenix".

It was a mistake, I should have listened to the employee. Especially when the employee at Blockbuster admits a movie is really bad, that must mean the movie is REALLY bad, and it was. I should have listened to the voice in my head saying "turn this movie off, it's horrible and won't get better" but I didn't. Dave Foley and Scott Thompson were both all right, but the movie's plot was pretty bad and none of the other characters were very good, especially the two leads and most especially the fat one. This might be the worst movie I've ever seen. If you watch it, wait until it's on T.V. for free.

2/10 (I have to give KITH members at least one point each!)

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.

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!

Well, walking into this film at the Victoria Film Festival (one of four films that I got to see) I was expecting something along the lines of a "serious" comedy, versus a slapstick - - - > which is what it inevitably turned out to be.

But not to be taken the wrong way; I actually PREFER slapsticks. BUT, i ALSO figured that this film would be something along the lines of a drama that would be done like any other film, versus a mocumentary.

Immediately when the film began and I discovered it to be a mocumentary, I began comparing it to FUBAR - - - > which stands to be not only the best mocumentary ever made, but the funniest movie I've ever seen. Unfortunately, Ham and Cheese didn't quite reach the great status of FUBAR.....at FIRST anyways.

The bad thing about this mocumentary was the fact that you KNEW it wasn't real at all because the camera work consisted of constantly changing angles and shots that would be impossible to do with any documentary, and the characters only talked to the camera when they were seated and prepared.

Another bad thing about this film was the fact that none of it was improvised (i know this because the director told me so), and its the improvisation that gives mocumentaries their comic-real-life ZING. Films like "A mighty wind" and FUBAR were insanely hilarious because of the realism that was brought into the slapstick, making you nearly wet yourself at the comic genious of it all.

But don't get me wrong, their were DEFINATELY scenes that nearly made me wet myself - - - > scenes that I laughed even harder at by the time i left the theatre.

The actors carried their roles seemlessly from the opening bad-singing sequence to the naked runaway scene. And some of the completely ridiculous stupid lines that were blurted out like, "I dug up the ground, and i F***ED IT!!!" made me fall out of my seat in incredibly loud laughter (you have to watch the entire film to understand that part). But the fact that they TRIED to make it look proffessional was what took away the REALISM that makes mocumentaries so funny.

When the movie finished, I listened to the director and main actor talk about the movie, and I realised the time and budget that they had to deal with the making of the film, which made me realise that all that stuff I was thinking was a little harsh. What they also said was that later on you will probably laugh more when you look back at the scenes of the movie - - - > which is what happened with me. Throughout the entire next day I couldnt help but laugh at all the stupid scenes, and even the ones that I didnt laugh at before made me laugh later on just because it was so STUPID!

At the ending i COULD have bought the DVD and got it signed and then talked to the director and actor, but my grudge that I had about it not being as funny as FUBAR at the time prevented me from doing any of that. Now I look back and highly regret not doing so, because I realise now that it was funny, and probably JUST as funny as FUBAR was.

Oh well, I guess now that if others see the film and enjoy it, i can at LEAST say, "Well guess what, i saw the PREMIERE!". ....to bad no signed DVD for me.....

i give it a 7.8/10