Ed

No baseball fan can like this movie. Watching bad effects of a monkey playing the game totally makes this film unwatchable. The person below me said it was a good film, so I took a double take only to find out they said it was so bad that it's hilarious. That could be true I guess. Another side "plot" is the monkey trying to help the bumbling Matt LeBlanc with a girl, which is even more nauseating than the scenes on the field. I think.

.... On second thoughts don`t bother because this is ape sh*t . I can imagine the producers got together and said something like " Monkeys . Everyone loves monkeys . Parents love monkeys , children love monkeys , Michael Jackson loves monkeys so lets make a family film about a monkey "

I know films with monkeys can be box office gold like PLANET OF THE APES ( The original one not the dumb remake ) but that`s because it had a great story , or the Clint Eastwood movies with Clyde but that`s because they were funny with great gags ( Many of which involved the hell`s angels ) but there`s nothing here that made me laugh probably because I hate slapstick . Strangely there isn`t even moments of mawkish sentiment either , though the producers do try this - And fail - with one scene with Ed in a hospital bed. You make a movie about a cheeky monkey and there`s no laughs or tears involved ! Now that`s amazing

In the 1950s rocket scientists sent monkeys out into space . After seeing ED you`ll be disgusted that they don`t do it anymore

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.

From the moment I watched this movie on VHS, there wasn't' even any trailers, immediately, it started with the movie. Wasn't anything awful, but I thought it was worth mentioning. I bought this as a complete joke, not thinking much of it, and watched it with my friends, and ed changed our lives.

There's something about the bad acting, the dreadful pacing, the horrible directing, the horrendous editing, that combine into this dreadful, depressing experience. You know that type of person who pretends they heard what you said, and you're both stumbling over each other, pretending you're in sync with the conversation, but in reality, it's a painful moment, that's how I feel when watching this movie.

Scenes go on oddly long, and most of the dialogue feels forced and unnatural, Ed, the monkey himself, is such an awful, unlikable character, and Matt LeBlanc seems bored for the whole movie, actually as a matter of fact, literally everyone seems bored. There's one scene where Ed is on the couch and bends his head down on the floor for something, and it tries to sneak a jump cut in while his leaning down, so when he pops back up, something's on his face, but it's actually noticeable, even on vhs. It literally hurt to experience this moment. I expected to talk a lot about this movie, and go in depth with the plot, but what's the point, it's such a cliched movie to begin with, but it literally fails at feeling like a movie. I've honestly never experience something like this, it all fall apart so well, and not even at a point where it's so bad it's good, but it just feels so inhumane. I would say not to ever watch this movie, but if you get some friends with you and want to feel something for once, watch Ed.

I was running a movie theater when this turkey came out. We got to have a special sneak preview of it, which was rare for my theater. (a two screen theater in a city of less than 15,000 people)

I put the film together and decided to watch it to make sure all the splices were right. Fifteen minutes into it my four year old son was completely ignoring the film, and my father and I looked at each other and pondered how this was part of our life that we would never get back. If you think the kid had a short attention span, I would have to inform you that this is the same kid that watched Lion King from start to finish every night for a month two years before this.

If your idea of entertainment is monkeys farting - this is your film. If you're looking for something slightly more entertaining with animals, go watch Babe instead.