Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Cyrus Assam This movie has a lot of great things going for it. For one thing, there is a monkey in this movie and the monkey is playing baseball! Just like a human would. Also, there are other things that are good about this movie too probably.Matt Leblanc is in this movie. You probably remember him as one of the five funniest Friends on "Friends." This is easily his best feature film outside of doing "Friends," if for no other reason than this is the only movie I can think of that he was ever in.I don't want to spoil anything, and this is the type of movie that will really keep you guessing right up til the end, so I will end my review here. Let me just say that, if you only see one movie where Matt Leblanc plays baseball with a monkey, it should be "Ed!"

Electrified_Voltage I distinctly remember that it was at a family gathering in the autumn of 1996, when I was told about "Ed", a movie which I had never heard of before. I also got to see at least a bit of the film at that gathering, and it must have been pretty new to the home video format at the time. I was ten years old when this happened, and I guess I was pretty much indifferent to what I saw, most of which I wouldn't remember. I don't think I ever heard anything about this big time flop again until at least nearly a decade later, when I noticed that it was in the IMDb bottom 100. Before discovering that, I knew nothing about the family sports comedy's general reception, but for several years now, I have known that it's generally considered to be atrocious, so I was not too surprised by its lameness when I finally watched it all, fifteen years after its theatrical release.Jack "Deuce" Cooper proves to be a very talented baseball pitcher while playing on his farm, and his skills get him into the minor leagues, playing for the Santa Rosa Rockets, but it turns out that he doesn't do so well while playing in front of a crowd. Soon after he joins the team, they get another new player, one who happens to be a chimpanzee named Ed! One would likely believe that a monkey couldn't possibly play baseball, but surprisingly, this one is a natural on the field! This unusual baseball player becomes Jack's new roommate, and unfortunately, he soon ends up causing a lot of trouble for the human baseball player in the home, making big messes and doing things Jack wishes he wouldn't do. However, despite Ed's sometimes reckless behaviour, he turns out to be a really good friend to Jack, and a big help to the Rockets during games, but somebody has other plans for this popular minor league player! I don't know what the humour here is like for kids, but while watching the film after growing up, there wasn't a single moment I was unable to keep a straight face through! Ed is one unconvincing monkey, and is also very unfunny with his antics! The sight gags involving this character causing trouble and being messy, plus the ones involving his bodily functions, are perfect examples of the movie's poor attempts to be humorous. Ed may be the weakest aspect of the film, but any other character that is supposed to be funny, including more than one human Santa Rosa Rockets player and the Liz character, also fails miserably. In addition to being consistently unfunny, "Ed" also has a dull plot (one could easily call that an understatement), and whether Jack "Deuce" Cooper is out on the baseball field with Ed, at home or on the road having problems with the chimp's behaviour, dating the Lydia character, etc., it's generally not entertaining at all. I should probably mention that the story sure is predictable as well, with no big surprises, and if the writers ever tried to be touching here, they also failed at that.All I could remember from what I saw of this movie back when I was ten years old was a baseball player saying Ed is Curious George, shaking his hand, and telling him he has read all his books, and the trouble the monkey causes as Jack's roommate making the struggling baseball player say, "I'm gonna spank that monkey!" Well, after watching what I saw all those years ago, along with the rest of the film, I'm going to remember a lot more, not that these memories will do me much good. If I hadn't been introduced to the film in my childhood, I doubt it would have really caught my attention when I found it in the bottom 100, and I wouldn't have ever seen it, but wouldn't have missed out on much had that been the case. Unlike so many other voters, I can't give "Ed" the lowest rating possible, and am not even 100% sure about my 2/10 rating, but see no really good reason why I should rate it any higher, since I agree with the vast majority that it's thoroughly unfunny and badly written. I may not have said much about this 1996 flop that others have already pointed out, but I agree with these criticisms, and would say there's absolutely nothing to make "Ed" worth watching!

Seth Nelson Play ball! This movie definitely does not deserve the three strikes treatment! I've seen all those imported sport-playing animal movies (the "Air Bud" flicks; the hockey-playing chimp; they may be all Canadian, but the imports are the best stuff on Earth!), and they are good! "Ed" is a fun, funny, cute flick that warms your hearts. There is no need to give this movie a low rating! Heck, there is no need to give an actor and his chimpanzee a fake, $5 trophy for a bad movie performance! Any movie with an animal playing one type of sport or another is a very clever idea, and all families will appreciate the idea of that as well! P.S. To the short reviewer who thought this movie was like getting your teeth drilled twice: could I meet that cheerleader? :-*

smithqk Despite persistent talk of Hollywood's "Golden Age of Cinema", movie-making did not truly reach its zenith until 1996. The movie was "Ed", not to be confused with the Whoopie Goldberg abortion of celluloid "Eddie", that premiered during that same year. In "Ed" award-winning documentary filmmaker Bill Couturie employs the technique of cinema verite that lets the camera capture a true slice of sporting Americana... a monkey playing minor league baseball. "Ed" is not merely, as Brad Laidman of filmthreat.com raved, "[a movie] some would say that kids may like," but rather the examination of the symbiotic relationship between man and monkey. Despite their outward appearances, can a clear distinction really be made between the monkey Ed and his human counterpart, Matt LeBlanc? In the film, excel at baseball (although the monkey is the star), both delight in flatulence, and both have giant cartoon teeth. And wonderfully, when the film reaches it's glorious climax, it is the monkey that most clearly embodies our notions of humanity, imbibing LeBlanc with the confidence to again throw his curve-ball, the pitch that eventually paves his way into the Big Leagues (this is despite LeBlanc's supposed ability to throw a 125 mph fastball). Although there may be some factual inaccuracies in the film (in a conversation with LeBlanc, a teammate tells him that Carlton Fisk was a flop in Boston, but went on to find greatness in Chicago), the true essence of "Ed" is in it's spirit... and in the fact that it has a monkey as it's star. Watching this film for the first time, I realized that I was examining the very embodiment of greatness. This being the case, "Ed" became the basis on which I would judge all future films. Forget Siskel and Ebert (especially Siskel) with their thumbs... forget Leonard Maltin with his stars... and forget A.O. Scott with his homosexual, liberal bias. The only scale worthy of film review is the Banana Scale. Based on 3 bananas (because really, who needs five?) this scale cuts through all the other ridiculous criteria such as plot, character development, acting and direction commonly used by other critics in their evaluations, and judges movies based on three essential elements. These elements are:1. Does the movie contain a character from "Friends"? 2. Does the movie contain a monkey? 3. Is the movie about baseball? As you probably realize, there is only one film in history that contains all these elements, and, therefore, it is the greatest movie ever made. "Citizen Kane" by comparison, the film often mislabeled as the greatest, contains none of the essential elements of greatness. Therefore, it is hardly worth mentioning. But a movie such as "M.V.P.: Most Valuable Primate", centers it's story around a chimpanzee that plays for a youth hockey team. This is one of those interesting films that strives for greatness, but lacks certain characteristics that would've put it over the top. One may ask what director Robert Vince was thinking when he cast Rick Ducommun in the role of Coach Marlow when he could certainly have had David Schwimmer. And instead of hockey, why not youth baseball? But decisions such as these have presented film buffs with interesting fodder for years, wondering what could have been if, say, O.J. Simpson had in fact played the title role in "The Terminator", or if instead of Leonardo DiCaprio, director James Cameron had cast Dustin Diamond, as he originally planned? But judging on it's finished product, "MVP" receives 1 1/2 bananas... one for containing a monkey, and 1/2 for being about a sport other than baseball. Not bad, judging against the current, deplorable standards of Hollywood. Based on it's greatness, it comes as a surprise to most that an "Ed" sequel has never been attempted. I have always assumed that the movie has become a victim of it's own greatness. Much like Roberto Clemente, who walked away during the apex of his career, knowing that he had reached a level of greatness that would doom his future endeavors to failure in the public eye by comparison, "Ed" director Bill Couturie knows that another installment would be severely overshadowed by it's predecessor. But taking matters into my own hands, I penned a letter to Mr. Couturie, outlining my ideas for a suitable sequel. The idea goes like this: Both LeBlanc's character and Ed the monkey are playing in the major leagues... one for a team in the National league, the other for a team in the American. By coincidence, the two teams meet in the World Series. Although LeBlanc is now recognized as one of the greatest pitchers of all time, he is no match for the hitting prowess of Ed the monkey. And when they square of, mano-e-monkeyo, Ed the monkey is forced to make a decision whether to allow his friend LeBlanc to strike him out, or propel his team to victory by hitting a home-run, which he can do at will. I argue that this will be the first film that allows it's viewers to really get inside the mind of the monkey... to see his thought process, to witness what makes the monkey tick. By the time the last pitch is thrown, there won't be a dry eye in the house... and those tears will be both tears of laughter and tears of empathy... a rare combination. Although I haven't heard back from Couturie as of yet, I expect a response before too long. Ideas like this don't come around everyday. If not Couturie, I imagine a Hollywood heavyweight director will jump on board. From what I understand, Kubrick was considering optioning my treatment before his untimely passing. Although the idea was intriguing, I thought that perhaps Kubrick would understate the levity in a project such as this... opting for lingering shots, subtle dialog, and a brooding score by Beethoven, instead of the sped up action scenes, screaming monkey dialog, and circus music score that I believe the film "Ed II: Monkey in the Majors" calls for.