Even though I like most of the players, I really wasn't expecting much from this movie. I wound up surprised by its freshness, wit and thoughtfulness. I feared a poor person's Truman Show, but this film took a lot of the same themes and spun them in different directions. The film lacked Truman's sadness and humanity but made up the difference with more concise and challenging social commentary (not to mention a better supporting cast). Issues of celebrity, entertainment, the media, the information age were all handled in interesting ways. When it needed to be abrasive and shocking, Ed TV took its shots, but it usually remained in a very comfortable and entertaining middle ground. As a viewer, I felt like someone who had spent the previous 15 minutes surfing channels before finally finding a gem worth watching.
207 Reviews
I laughed, I cried - what more could I ask?
Sarah-601 December 1999
I wasn't expecting much of this when I went to see it, but I totally loved it.
Its misleading to try to compare it with the Truman Show. There's a superficial similarity in their basic concept, but otherwise they are completely different (and I loved Truman - still can't understand what the Academy thought it was doing).
There was not one dull moment, and at times I though I would pee myself laughing (and it takes a lot for me to say that to a world wide audience!) I don't remember laughing so much at the cinema since Speed 2 - but this time for the right reasons.
So it was funny, but there were also genuinely moving sad bits.
Martin Landau absolutely stole the film with some killer one-liners, but all the performances were fantastic (even Liz Hurley didn't make me cringe, as she poked fun at her own reputation) Ellen is great, as is Woody Harrelson (who looks uncannily like his on-screen brother) and I always love Adam Goldberg. Matt McConaughey is perfect, whether he's being a jerk or doing the right thing (oh OK, and damn cute with it.)
The whole thing is probably enhanced by being so utterly believable, and ends with a great anti-corporate finger (literally, in fact, now I think about it)
Its misleading to try to compare it with the Truman Show. There's a superficial similarity in their basic concept, but otherwise they are completely different (and I loved Truman - still can't understand what the Academy thought it was doing).
There was not one dull moment, and at times I though I would pee myself laughing (and it takes a lot for me to say that to a world wide audience!) I don't remember laughing so much at the cinema since Speed 2 - but this time for the right reasons.
So it was funny, but there were also genuinely moving sad bits.
Martin Landau absolutely stole the film with some killer one-liners, but all the performances were fantastic (even Liz Hurley didn't make me cringe, as she poked fun at her own reputation) Ellen is great, as is Woody Harrelson (who looks uncannily like his on-screen brother) and I always love Adam Goldberg. Matt McConaughey is perfect, whether he's being a jerk or doing the right thing (oh OK, and damn cute with it.)
The whole thing is probably enhanced by being so utterly believable, and ends with a great anti-corporate finger (literally, in fact, now I think about it)
Good morning! You're live on EDtv!
Lady_Targaryen18 November 2005
EdTv is a comedy, but also a very serious movie: if you notice our reality in the present days, full of cameras watching us everywhere we go, and even the reality show programs, you will notice that the main thing in the movie is not only to entertain, but maybe also to alert people about the dangerous problems of all this stuff. Ed Pekurny is a regular guy who suddenly gets invited to be part of a reality show. He accepts,specially because he wants the money that the TV executives are going to pay him. Gradually, what starts being funny and even a nice way of popularity becomes a nightmare,with Ed not having any privacy at all,specially with his girlfriend Shari.
I found the end of this movie very cool. Go watch it :)
I found the end of this movie very cool. Go watch it :)
Nearly nothing like the Truman Show.
DustoMcNeato3 October 2001
It's a shame that due to the timing of when Edtv was released, it was automatically deemed a pitiful copy of the Truman Show, a movie that won our hearts the previous year. Now, I love the Truman Show too, very much, and I'll admit that I was was very uninterested in ever seeing a copy-cat version of it. It was until just a few weeks ago that I actually watched Edtv (even with the expectation that I would most likely not like it too much) and I must say I was pleasantly surprised!
Not only was Edtv funny and entertaining, but it was nearly nothing at all like the Truman Show. I mean, the ONLY similarity is the idea of a live TV show about an "ordinary" guy. But Truman didn't even know he was on TV. He was just living what he thought was an ordinary life. All the cameras and microphones were completely hidden and he lived in a town that was entirely fabricated from his wife and life-long best friend, to the rain and even the sun. His is a story of a man searching for an escape from his everyday life, which little by little he is realizing may not be what it seems. Ed on the other hand was a nobody who was chosen to have a camera crew actually follow him around all day while he went on about his life. His life, and in turn the show, became more about instant celebrity as viewers became enchanted in watching this loser become a mega-star over night. People flocked around him just as much to meet him as to be on TV themselves and he endured some major struggles in keeping his life and relationships normal, which was impossible with his celebrity status and on-camera life.
Both movies had a theme of America's fixation with TV, and more specifically Reality TV, but have different plots and overall themes altogether. I think Edtv was a very enjoyable movie and Mathew McConaughey and Jenna Elfman delivered fantastic performances. Not to mention the mind boggling, and I think underrated, job of editing such an enormous amount of footage. Considering that while the film cameras were rolling, the video cameras were rolling too, and just about all of the video footage you see was actually shot when you see it being shot, I think that Ron Howard did a great job of keeping track of it all and actually making it work. So when someone says, "Well, it was no Truman Show" they are absolutely right. I think it is a great movie that stands on it's own and should stand proud.
Not only was Edtv funny and entertaining, but it was nearly nothing at all like the Truman Show. I mean, the ONLY similarity is the idea of a live TV show about an "ordinary" guy. But Truman didn't even know he was on TV. He was just living what he thought was an ordinary life. All the cameras and microphones were completely hidden and he lived in a town that was entirely fabricated from his wife and life-long best friend, to the rain and even the sun. His is a story of a man searching for an escape from his everyday life, which little by little he is realizing may not be what it seems. Ed on the other hand was a nobody who was chosen to have a camera crew actually follow him around all day while he went on about his life. His life, and in turn the show, became more about instant celebrity as viewers became enchanted in watching this loser become a mega-star over night. People flocked around him just as much to meet him as to be on TV themselves and he endured some major struggles in keeping his life and relationships normal, which was impossible with his celebrity status and on-camera life.
Both movies had a theme of America's fixation with TV, and more specifically Reality TV, but have different plots and overall themes altogether. I think Edtv was a very enjoyable movie and Mathew McConaughey and Jenna Elfman delivered fantastic performances. Not to mention the mind boggling, and I think underrated, job of editing such an enormous amount of footage. Considering that while the film cameras were rolling, the video cameras were rolling too, and just about all of the video footage you see was actually shot when you see it being shot, I think that Ron Howard did a great job of keeping track of it all and actually making it work. So when someone says, "Well, it was no Truman Show" they are absolutely right. I think it is a great movie that stands on it's own and should stand proud.
"...and you, Ed, are no Truman Burbank!"
NJMoon28 August 1999
EDTV is more concerned with "Ed" than "TV".
In fact, throughout this dull and relentless tale of ordinary Joe Ed turned real-life 24-hour television star, Director Ron Howard consistently resists the obvious satire on the fallout of fame and focuses on the cloyingly saccharine romance that lies at EDTV's mushy core.
If you doubt this (and considering Howard's track record, you may), visit EDTV on DVD and you'll be treated to numerous deleted scenes that satirically drive home the point that fame is indeed a bitch. Unfortunately, these scenes are also some of the darkest, funniest and most telling in the script. (An entire subplot about an EdTV imitator that ends with tragedy was completely eliminated from the final cut.) Why then did they end up on the cutting room floor? Howard can't seem to get away from Mayberry sentimentality enough to make EDTV the film it needs to be by it's very nature. In fact, the stars of the film (Hurley, DeGeneres, Harrelson) could have made a more interesting documentary on the price of fame than EDTV does at it's cautious best.
All hail, however, the film's bright spot, Ellen DeGeneres. Yes, Ellen. With her balance of quirky humor and self-doubting charm, she manages to infuse the film with some sense of purpose and it is she (not wrongly cast lead Matthew McConaughey) that we care about.
See it for Ellen. Or, better yet, rent THE TRUMAN SHOW and cap it off with a re-run of TV's ELLEN. I guarantee more laughs and heaps more satire than the botched EDTV can ever provide.
In fact, throughout this dull and relentless tale of ordinary Joe Ed turned real-life 24-hour television star, Director Ron Howard consistently resists the obvious satire on the fallout of fame and focuses on the cloyingly saccharine romance that lies at EDTV's mushy core.
If you doubt this (and considering Howard's track record, you may), visit EDTV on DVD and you'll be treated to numerous deleted scenes that satirically drive home the point that fame is indeed a bitch. Unfortunately, these scenes are also some of the darkest, funniest and most telling in the script. (An entire subplot about an EdTV imitator that ends with tragedy was completely eliminated from the final cut.) Why then did they end up on the cutting room floor? Howard can't seem to get away from Mayberry sentimentality enough to make EDTV the film it needs to be by it's very nature. In fact, the stars of the film (Hurley, DeGeneres, Harrelson) could have made a more interesting documentary on the price of fame than EDTV does at it's cautious best.
All hail, however, the film's bright spot, Ellen DeGeneres. Yes, Ellen. With her balance of quirky humor and self-doubting charm, she manages to infuse the film with some sense of purpose and it is she (not wrongly cast lead Matthew McConaughey) that we care about.
See it for Ellen. Or, better yet, rent THE TRUMAN SHOW and cap it off with a re-run of TV's ELLEN. I guarantee more laughs and heaps more satire than the botched EDTV can ever provide.
Feel-good movie still enjoyable without much attention
othershinhadi20 December 2020
Feel-good movie with reality TV as its backdrop/setting, released back when reality TV was still fresh. Structured like a rom-com and taking a similar tone, it doesn't take itself too seriously. It deals with some real issues of reality TV, but it doesn't go too deep and instead focuses on the main character instead of the issues.
Matthew McConaughey's performance is the lynchpin that holds this whole movie together. Woody Harrelson's performance is as good but he doesn't show up as much.
Overall a pretty good movie if you want to just turn off your brain a while and play this on the background while you relax on the sofa. It doesn't demand your attention that much and you don't really need to remember/understand everything to still enjoy it.
7/10
Matthew McConaughey's performance is the lynchpin that holds this whole movie together. Woody Harrelson's performance is as good but he doesn't show up as much.
Overall a pretty good movie if you want to just turn off your brain a while and play this on the background while you relax on the sofa. It doesn't demand your attention that much and you don't really need to remember/understand everything to still enjoy it.
7/10
More realistic than The Truman Show, but not quite as good
steve.schonberger1 November 1999
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had the misfortune of coming out shortly after The Truman Show, a very different movie based on the same premise. The Truman Show took a fantasy approach, with lots of features that required suspension of disbelief: the completeness of the simulated world, Truman's questioning of a world that was self-consistent to him even where it was wrong to us, long-term co-stars who didn't feel guilty about deceiving him, etc. This movie took the realistic approach of someone fully aware of his situation, and trapped not by walls and deception, but a sucker's contract. They share the questionable idea that constant surveillance of someone's life can hold an audience, but make that believable by making the stars' lives interesting.
The fact that it's more realistic than The Truman Show doesn't make it a better movie, but it's still very good. The people signing up for the show are thrilled by the idea of exploiting the good aspects of fame, but also skeptical right from the start. Still, they're either too eager to sign up or not clever enough to read all the fine print, and jump into a contract that exploits the power imbalance between ordinary people and a big business (even though the network had been struggling, it was still a big business).
It's just right the way the executive who demeans Ellen Degeneres for her questionable idea, and gives her total credit for it, later tries to steal the credit for the show when it's a hit. Predictable, but only because we all know people who behave like that.
A particularly clever detail is the way the continuous ads at the bottom of the show's screen progress from cheap-looking text ads for small businesses to spiffy graphic ads for national businesses, as the show's ratings rise.
It's foreshadowed from the start -- the skepticism about the contract -- that Ed will eventually regret signing up for the show. But when the burden of fame gets to him, we don't have any idea how he can escape, and it seems he doesn't either. What does he do? That would be a spoiler.
The fact that it's more realistic than The Truman Show doesn't make it a better movie, but it's still very good. The people signing up for the show are thrilled by the idea of exploiting the good aspects of fame, but also skeptical right from the start. Still, they're either too eager to sign up or not clever enough to read all the fine print, and jump into a contract that exploits the power imbalance between ordinary people and a big business (even though the network had been struggling, it was still a big business).
It's just right the way the executive who demeans Ellen Degeneres for her questionable idea, and gives her total credit for it, later tries to steal the credit for the show when it's a hit. Predictable, but only because we all know people who behave like that.
A particularly clever detail is the way the continuous ads at the bottom of the show's screen progress from cheap-looking text ads for small businesses to spiffy graphic ads for national businesses, as the show's ratings rise.
It's foreshadowed from the start -- the skepticism about the contract -- that Ed will eventually regret signing up for the show. But when the burden of fame gets to him, we don't have any idea how he can escape, and it seems he doesn't either. What does he do? That would be a spoiler.
Ton of fun with enough substance to hold it up
movieswithgreg6 August 2020
I gave this a hard pass at the theaters, for two reasons: I thought it was going to be trivial, and I despise "found footage" movies. I was right about the former, not so much about the latter. I was wrong about an unspoken third part too - this movie is a barrel full of monkeys, in the best possible way.
Sure, it's superficial, but it's written and paced and acted and directed so well. It's uber-accessible enjoyment, despite its angle becoming too stupid to think about for too long, else you bruise your brain. It's lovable, wonderfully energetic. It's almost a perfect first-date flick. And it even gives you a little room to think about its upholstered messages about craving fame, media exploitation, and all that stuff that's become so everyday in today's social media culture.
Sure, it's superficial, but it's written and paced and acted and directed so well. It's uber-accessible enjoyment, despite its angle becoming too stupid to think about for too long, else you bruise your brain. It's lovable, wonderfully energetic. It's almost a perfect first-date flick. And it even gives you a little room to think about its upholstered messages about craving fame, media exploitation, and all that stuff that's become so everyday in today's social media culture.
Obnoxious comedy...
moonspinner551 September 2007
A misfire from the writing team of Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, an unfunny satire of reality television shows concerning a video store clerk picked by a lagging cable network to be the star of their new series. Matthew McConaughey gets followed around with cameras twenty-four hours a day, straining family relations and making dates with sexpots extremely difficult. Remake of the Canadian film "Louis XIX" has something to offend everybody, though the actors are well-cast (McConaughey and Woody Harrelson, in particular). Still, precious few of these slapstick jokes work, while Ron Howard directs in a smug, self-satisfied fashion. *1/2 from ****
The Opposite of The Truman Show-shouldn't be compared to it.
derekh26 September 1999
Most of the comments here compare EdTV -- flatteringly or unflatteringly -- to The Truman Show. This is a totally invalid comparison in my opinion, unless you intend to compare opposites. EdTV is almost the opposite of The Truman Show. Where The Truman Show was about TV as the ultimate deception (a man is totally shielded from the real world, and his fictionalized life is exposed without his knowledge for the amusement of the masses), EdTV is about TV as the ultimate truth-teller (a man is totally revealed to the real world, and his real life is exposed with his full knowledge for the amusement of the masses). Perhaps they're flip sides of the same coin, but they are definitely flip sides...calling it any kind of imitation of The Truman Show misses the point of the film. Its the antithesis of The Truman Show.
As to quality, it is generally solid if not spectacular. There is a bit of a TV-ish quality to it...it would work just as well as a made-for-TV movie as on the big screen. It also suffers a little from some unbelievable moments showing how Ed can't have a private conversation with anyone without a camera six inches from his face. It's done for effect, but there's no reason the cameras couldn't have gotten the exact same picture from further away by simply zooming in. The performances are all pretty good. I especially liked Jenna Elfman as Ed's suddenly overexposed girlfriend. The screenplay is witty in places, if unremarkable.
All in all, a worthwhile look at an extreme example of the voyeuristic nature of modern entertainment. A good rental. I give it 7 out of 10.
As to quality, it is generally solid if not spectacular. There is a bit of a TV-ish quality to it...it would work just as well as a made-for-TV movie as on the big screen. It also suffers a little from some unbelievable moments showing how Ed can't have a private conversation with anyone without a camera six inches from his face. It's done for effect, but there's no reason the cameras couldn't have gotten the exact same picture from further away by simply zooming in. The performances are all pretty good. I especially liked Jenna Elfman as Ed's suddenly overexposed girlfriend. The screenplay is witty in places, if unremarkable.
All in all, a worthwhile look at an extreme example of the voyeuristic nature of modern entertainment. A good rental. I give it 7 out of 10.
Every move you make...every breath you take!
michaelRokeefe25 March 2003
Ron Howard directs this quirky comedy about a San Francisco video-store clerk(Matthew McConaughey)allowing a desperate TV station televise his daily life around-the-clock. It causes problems for those around him, especially his brother(Woody Harrelson)and a new relationship with his brother's former girlfriend(Jenna Elfman). This is so off beat...I like it. After a while you realize you've been watching it for two hours. A real diverse cast keeps the movie alive. Featured players:Ellen DeGeneres, Rob Reiner, Martin Landau, Sally Kirkland, Dennis Hopper and Elizabeth Hurley who is hotter than hot. Give this romantic comedy a chance to play your heart strings.
Fame is double-edged sword.
T-1023 March 1999
EdTV was a thoroughly enjoyable film. Although similar to The Truman Show in that a person's life is filmed, it differs in that Ed (Matthew McConaughey) "knowing- ly" agrees to have his life filmed by a tabloid TV show. The film shows the resulting changes in character and relationships due to this new found fame. Strong performances were made by Mr. McConaughey and Mr. Harrelson who plays his delinquent brother. They are extremely convincing as brothers. A fine performance was also made by Martin Landau as his invalid stepfather. The cast includes a number of other quality actors who portray people who are interesting if not always noble or likable. Although very funny at times EdTV is much more than a comedy. A very entertaining film! Three stars!!!
A second rate film compared to Truman Show
Rob 11 August 2000
This film was more reality based, more urban based and gritty. Ron Howard is a good Director but really doesn't know how to set up good jokes. The film boasts a talented cast but Matthew McConaughey has slipped from a stellar performance (a time to kill) to a lazy performance in Edtv. Sally Kirkland was just annoying as the mother and Dennis Hopper wasn't in the film to give him a billing. The film rested on four capable actors shoulders, ellen DeGeneres, Martin Landau, Clint Howard and Rob Reiner, they make it work. **1/2 out of ****
It's deja vu all over again
beejer23 February 2000
Edtv suffers by the inevitable comparison to the similar and superior "The Truman Show" (1998). Frankly, I'm surprised that a director of the caliber of Ron Howard would be involved in the making of this clone. This will definitely not go down as one of his greatest films.
The story involves a cable network called True TV deciding to televise the daily life of an everyman to the nation. A cast of talented people is largely wasted. To theirs and Howard's credit they, for the most part, almost carry it off. Unfortunately, the story degenerates into the Hollywood formula boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back formula, complete with the contrived happy ending.
Matthew McConaughey stars as Ed and is one of the reasons that I didn't like this film. He is not believable as the main character and goes through the entire film looking like he needs a bath and a shave, and dressed as though he picked his clothes out of the laundry hamper. Woody Harrelson is wasted as Ed's brother. He has little to do after the first half hour. I think he would have been much better in the lead role than was McConaughey.
Of the rest of the cast, Ellen Degeneres as the producer and Rob Reiner as the network executive are good, as is Martin Landau in a limited role. I would have liked to seen more of the Landau character. Dennis Hopper turns up all too briefly as Ed's long lost father and Sally Kirkland is over the top as his mother. Jenna Elfman plays the heroine and Elizabeth Hurley sizzles as the actress trying to seduce Ed for her own gain.
In the end, EDtv is too much like but not near as good as "The Truman Show".
The story involves a cable network called True TV deciding to televise the daily life of an everyman to the nation. A cast of talented people is largely wasted. To theirs and Howard's credit they, for the most part, almost carry it off. Unfortunately, the story degenerates into the Hollywood formula boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back formula, complete with the contrived happy ending.
Matthew McConaughey stars as Ed and is one of the reasons that I didn't like this film. He is not believable as the main character and goes through the entire film looking like he needs a bath and a shave, and dressed as though he picked his clothes out of the laundry hamper. Woody Harrelson is wasted as Ed's brother. He has little to do after the first half hour. I think he would have been much better in the lead role than was McConaughey.
Of the rest of the cast, Ellen Degeneres as the producer and Rob Reiner as the network executive are good, as is Martin Landau in a limited role. I would have liked to seen more of the Landau character. Dennis Hopper turns up all too briefly as Ed's long lost father and Sally Kirkland is over the top as his mother. Jenna Elfman plays the heroine and Elizabeth Hurley sizzles as the actress trying to seduce Ed for her own gain.
In the end, EDtv is too much like but not near as good as "The Truman Show".
Why are you all comparing??
Matrix-1421 August 1999
people who keep saying this is just like the truman show are stupid. it's completely different, and it didn't rip of anybody. both movies were probably being made at the same time. Truman Show has barely any similarities to EdTV. EDTV is a romantic comedy, light satire, and truman show is a drama. EdTV didn't get what it deserved at the box office and i respect howard whose direction is excellent, for releasing this movie when he did. Harrelson and Landau are hilarious and this is probably matthew's best performance i've seen of him. he really does a great job. jenna elfman too. Very funny, entertaining movie, and a great DVD. I laugh so hard when the camera man falls in the outtakes section of the bonus materials.
Give Me A Break
Shaft-227 March 1999
Better than The Truman Show? Please. Granted, Edtv was an entertaining flick, with some good performances (notably Ellen DeGeneres and Martin Landau), and a funny script, but it was not the movie that The Truman Show was.
Compare: where Truman endeavored to portray a show that really depicted human nature, Edtv gives us a 24-hour Jerry Springer episode. Think about it - what kind of person would actually go on Edtv? The same people who go on Springer - freaks looking for fame at whatever price.
Beats the Truman Show on concept? WHAT?! What is more innovative, more original - a bunch of cameras following around a white-trash fame-seeker, or an entirely constructed world centered around an unwitting martyr to the voyeuristic instinct in human nature? What is more effective, Peter Weir's brilliant shots of hidden cameras, or a bunch of camera guys following Matthew McConaghey around? I mean, this is just a no-brainer.
And as a social commentary, I challenge Edtv's supporters to name one original thought that this film presented. What, TV is bad, invasion of privacy by the media is bad? Yeah, that's innovative.
Finally, I would like to echo Ben Nuckols' comments about the group of Edtv viewers. Simply put, they were a pathetic attempt at getting a PC cross-section of America. Yet at the same time, they were crassly stereotypical - two men, comprising the obligatory gay couple, show affection towards each other, and that's supposed to be a laugh. Ha ha, they're gay! Please.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie a great deal. But to see this movie held up as a masterpiece or even better than The Truman Show is ridiculous. It rehashes the same old things we've been hearing since the word "paparazzi" became a household term but never really makes any kind of innovative point.
And think about it: did instant fame really hurt Ed? He got the girl, got money, forged new - and true - relationships with his family, and got to get it on with Elizabeth Hurley. Show me the downside.
Compare: where Truman endeavored to portray a show that really depicted human nature, Edtv gives us a 24-hour Jerry Springer episode. Think about it - what kind of person would actually go on Edtv? The same people who go on Springer - freaks looking for fame at whatever price.
Beats the Truman Show on concept? WHAT?! What is more innovative, more original - a bunch of cameras following around a white-trash fame-seeker, or an entirely constructed world centered around an unwitting martyr to the voyeuristic instinct in human nature? What is more effective, Peter Weir's brilliant shots of hidden cameras, or a bunch of camera guys following Matthew McConaghey around? I mean, this is just a no-brainer.
And as a social commentary, I challenge Edtv's supporters to name one original thought that this film presented. What, TV is bad, invasion of privacy by the media is bad? Yeah, that's innovative.
Finally, I would like to echo Ben Nuckols' comments about the group of Edtv viewers. Simply put, they were a pathetic attempt at getting a PC cross-section of America. Yet at the same time, they were crassly stereotypical - two men, comprising the obligatory gay couple, show affection towards each other, and that's supposed to be a laugh. Ha ha, they're gay! Please.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie a great deal. But to see this movie held up as a masterpiece or even better than The Truman Show is ridiculous. It rehashes the same old things we've been hearing since the word "paparazzi" became a household term but never really makes any kind of innovative point.
And think about it: did instant fame really hurt Ed? He got the girl, got money, forged new - and true - relationships with his family, and got to get it on with Elizabeth Hurley. Show me the downside.
Everybody Loves Ed!
ed-1602 April 1999
All of us, if only for a moment, have wondered what it would be like to be famous. Now, we need wonder no more. In EDtv, director Ron Howard (Apollo 13, Ransom) takes a self-reflecting and often hilarious look into the not-so-private life of the celebrity. But the beauty here is that the celebrity here is not really a celebrity; he's just an everyday Ed Pekurny. When Northwest Broadcasting Company's (NWBC) flagship cable channel, True TV (a station devoted to Real TV-like documentary programming) falls so low in the ratings that they find themselves playing catch-up to stations like the Gardening Channel, programming director Cynthia Topping (played charmingly by Ellen DeGeneres) decides that it's time for a drastic change. So, in a last-ditch effort to boost ratings and save her job, Topping suggests putting an ordinary person's life on live cable TV. It's all live, 24- hours a day, with no script and no editing. It's the ultimate in True TV! Once the project gets the green light from station executive Jim Whitaker (Rob Reiner), Topping sets out to find her star. She eventually settles on Ed Pekurny (Matthew McConaughey), a handsome yet lazy video store clerk who just happened to be in a San Francisco bar where True TV conducts their talent search. Within days, however, Ed is propelled to superstar status, as EDtv becomes a huge hit across the country. Unfortunately, it isn't a picnic for Ed. His blossoming relationship with his brother's camera-shy ex, Shari, (Jenna Elfman) begins to fall apart due to the lack of privacy in Ed's life. Consequently, Ed's relationship with his brother and the rest of his family crumbles. It gets so bad that Ed is not even allowed at his estranged father's funeral because of the television cameras that accompany him everywhere he goes. It is at this point that we begin to question just whether being a celebrity is all that it's cracked up to be. At first glance, EDtv seems suspiciously similar to last year's hit The Truman Show. At least that's what I thought when I first saw the previews. But the two films are actually very different. In fact, Ron Howard pokes fun of the supposed similarities by casting Harry Shearer as a talk-show host (virtually the same role he had in The Truman Show). It's true that they both deal with putting the lives of people on television, but in all actuality the two films deal with two very different questions. The Truman Show looks at the ethical questions involved with putting someone on TV who does not choose to be there, and subsequently is all about the effects this has on the main character. However, EDtv is an exploration of the loss of privacy that results from being a celebrity, and how that effects not only the life of the celebrity and the lives of those around him. As Ed's best friend, John (played by Adam Goldberg) puts it, in one of the best lines in the movie: `With no privacy, there is no dignity.' McConaughey pulls off the innocence and charm that Ed puts in front of the camera quit nicely, but it's the supporting cast that really puts EDtv into high gear. Elfman puts just the right touch amount of emotion into her role, avoiding the selfish sob-queen stereotype that would have been all-too-easy to fall into, and Woody Harrelson is hilarious as Ed's self-absorbed big brother Ray, who sees Ed's good fortune primarily as a golden opportunity to promote his gym. Degeneres gives undoubtedly one of the best performances of her career as the programming director whose die-hard commitment to boosting ratings and keeping her job suddenly seem trivial when it becomes obvious that Ed is no longer enjoying all the attention he is receiving. And the supporting cast of EDtv phenomenal as well. Martin Landau as Ed's Lark-ridden stepfather and Clint Howard (Ron's brother, making his token cameo in a Ron Howard-directed film) as the show's pathetic director, make excellent contributions and keep the laughs coming. But EDtv is as smart and well-made as it is funny, and the message is clear: being a celebrity ain't all that it's cracked up to be. Perhaps after seeing this movie some audience member won't want to become famous anymore. As for me, I'd rather see for myself.
As dated as a Y2K disaster flick but still entertaining
rooprect7 March 2012
"EdTV" is Hollywood's remake of the 1994 French-Canadian hit "Louis 19: le roi des ondes". I'm not going to compare the two films. The only reason I mentioned it is to set the record straight that "EdTV" (1999) is NOT a ripoff of "The Truman Show" (1998) since the screenplay was bought years earlier.
"EdTV" is a somewhat Orwellian comedy/drama about an everyman named "Ed" who falls victim to society's hi-tech voyeurism. Ed becomes the pawn of a bunch of network suits who broadcast (and do their best to ruin) his entire life to the thrill of millions of viewers. I think it would've worked better as a no-holds-barred satire (like the movies "LIVE", "ROBOCOP", "AMERICAN DREAMZ" or the masterpiece "BRAZIL", but director Ron Howard opts to take the kinder, gentler approach which ends up watering down the message & its impact on us.
Not only that, but today the story isn't as edgy as it might have been back in the 90s when reality TV was just budding, and we didn't know where it would lead. Today's audiences might think "what's the big deal?" and to be honest I found myself thinking that a few times during the picture. But I do remember the 90s and the whole reality-TV phobia which fueled such stories as this, and that's what made it an entertaining film for me. If you remember the 90s and your first reactions to the new phenomenon called reality TV, you might enjoy it too.
At times the film teases us with challenging philosophies, in particular there's the intriguing line: "Ed is the apotheosis of a prevailing American syndrome. It used to be that people were famous for being special. Now they're considered special merely for being famous. Fame has become a moral good in this country: It's its own virtue" Unfortunately, the film never follows up on such thoughts and instead runs back to predictable drama, such as the girlfriend who can't deal with cameras invading her life, or the cliché about Ed being hounded by brainless fans all the time. These plot devices undermine the power of a film like this, reducing the film to passing entertainment instead of something more thought-provoking.
The whole film struck me as being a very "Ron Howard" production, which means a shiny, polished presentation and a predictable Disney-like story with no real surprises or tension. It dazzles us with a great star-studded cast and a lot of gloss (the budget was an estimated $60 million... five times as much as 1999's Academy Award winner "American Beauty").
But I was much more impressed with the relatively obscure films "LIVE" (a satire about a reality show where the contestants play Russian roulette), "CASI DIVAS" (a great Mexican comedy/satire about a nationwide search for new talent), and an unknown comedy gem called "SPECIAL" about an ordinary chump who takes an experimental drug and becomes... uh... special. These 3 films deliver entertainment but more importantly they carry a lot of weight behind what they're telling us. "EdTV" had a few noteworthy scenes, such as the funeral confrontation between the two brothers, but these scenes were deleted from the final release and can only be seen on the DVD extras. The result is a somewhat breezy and entertaining but unimportant film.
"EdTV" is worth the price of admission, and it kept me entertained from start to finish. But if you want a little more substance to feed your brain, try to check out the other films I mentioned above.
"EdTV" is a somewhat Orwellian comedy/drama about an everyman named "Ed" who falls victim to society's hi-tech voyeurism. Ed becomes the pawn of a bunch of network suits who broadcast (and do their best to ruin) his entire life to the thrill of millions of viewers. I think it would've worked better as a no-holds-barred satire (like the movies "LIVE", "ROBOCOP", "AMERICAN DREAMZ" or the masterpiece "BRAZIL", but director Ron Howard opts to take the kinder, gentler approach which ends up watering down the message & its impact on us.
Not only that, but today the story isn't as edgy as it might have been back in the 90s when reality TV was just budding, and we didn't know where it would lead. Today's audiences might think "what's the big deal?" and to be honest I found myself thinking that a few times during the picture. But I do remember the 90s and the whole reality-TV phobia which fueled such stories as this, and that's what made it an entertaining film for me. If you remember the 90s and your first reactions to the new phenomenon called reality TV, you might enjoy it too.
At times the film teases us with challenging philosophies, in particular there's the intriguing line: "Ed is the apotheosis of a prevailing American syndrome. It used to be that people were famous for being special. Now they're considered special merely for being famous. Fame has become a moral good in this country: It's its own virtue" Unfortunately, the film never follows up on such thoughts and instead runs back to predictable drama, such as the girlfriend who can't deal with cameras invading her life, or the cliché about Ed being hounded by brainless fans all the time. These plot devices undermine the power of a film like this, reducing the film to passing entertainment instead of something more thought-provoking.
The whole film struck me as being a very "Ron Howard" production, which means a shiny, polished presentation and a predictable Disney-like story with no real surprises or tension. It dazzles us with a great star-studded cast and a lot of gloss (the budget was an estimated $60 million... five times as much as 1999's Academy Award winner "American Beauty").
But I was much more impressed with the relatively obscure films "LIVE" (a satire about a reality show where the contestants play Russian roulette), "CASI DIVAS" (a great Mexican comedy/satire about a nationwide search for new talent), and an unknown comedy gem called "SPECIAL" about an ordinary chump who takes an experimental drug and becomes... uh... special. These 3 films deliver entertainment but more importantly they carry a lot of weight behind what they're telling us. "EdTV" had a few noteworthy scenes, such as the funeral confrontation between the two brothers, but these scenes were deleted from the final release and can only be seen on the DVD extras. The result is a somewhat breezy and entertaining but unimportant film.
"EdTV" is worth the price of admission, and it kept me entertained from start to finish. But if you want a little more substance to feed your brain, try to check out the other films I mentioned above.
TV people
bhicks566 December 1999
As I watched this pleasantly funny, surprisingly entertaining flick by Ron Howard, of ANDY GRIFFITH and HAPPY DAYS fame, I noticed that the movie consists of alot, ALOT of television actors. Rob Reiner from ALL IN THE FAMILY, Ellen DeGeneres from ELLEN, Woody Harrelson from CHEERS, Walter Matthau from MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, Jenna Elfman from DHARMA & GREG, and even Ralph Malph from HAPPY DAYS.
I don't know how Hollywood works. It seems like every year there has to be two similar movies coming out near the same time and compete with each other. Whether its volcanos erupting or meteors hitting the earth or even computer-animated bugs, there's always a pair. The difference is usually that one plays as intelligence or serious drama and the other is popcorn fare. This movie, which battled the inventive and intelligent TRUMAN SHOW as a movie about real life on television, is of the popcorn kind.
This movie is hardly a mirrored image of THE TRUMAN SHOW. Matthew McConaughey, as Ed, KNOWS he's on camera, LIKES his fame, and comes to exploiting himself. The only similarity, I can think of, it having with TRUMAN, is the numerous scenes in which real people are watching.
EDTV is more of a satire of MTV's THE REAL WORLD, where producers try to exploit real dramas and conflicts of young people living together and sculpt them into likable and dislikable characters through editing.
EDTV is LIVE on the air, so it's hard to sculpt Ed or the people he comes in contact with, but that's what is so fun. The people in his hometown watch his travels eagerly on T.V. and when they see him come walking on their street, they stick their head out of the window and yell for Ed, so they can be on TV. There's even a gang that follows Ed from time to time, and he is even asked to give out autographs. Ed's phenomonal show gets so popular, that there is a poll of whether he should dump his shy girlfriend (Elfman) or go with a sassy model he met on the Tonight Show (Elizableth Hurley). The high percentage go for Hurley because they want to see someone sexier and more attractive on the show, no matter how well she fits with Ed. Hurley's model hardly cares. She just wants to be on television, and the (near)sex-scene they have, all recorded live(!) is RED HOT (something TRUMAN lacks).
I thought this movie would be more predictable than it is. You know Ed is going to eventually hate the popularity and fame and try to wiggle out of it as the network tries to keep him on to keep the high ratings, but how the movie ends was something even I couldn't have predicted. Jenna Elfman is very likable here, maybe because she isn't her usually aloof self. I like McConaughey, but he played his character so slacker-ish and gruff, he seemed drunk and high even as he was sweet and good-hearted. Harrelson shined, with the few scenes he had, as the brother who writes a book with the funniest title ever.Oh, and Jay Leno makes a very funny appearance.
In conclusion, this isn't better than THE TRUMAN SHOW, because it doesn't strive to be. It's a Ron Howard film, so it's quite high-lit even as it tries to be risque. There are many scenes that are touching and sad, especially the one containing Dennis Hopper, but ultimately it's a movie that has more strength on video than in theaters. It fits your television nicely (maybe because it was intended that way). Where TRUMAN deserves an A, this runner-up deserves a marginal B+.
I don't know how Hollywood works. It seems like every year there has to be two similar movies coming out near the same time and compete with each other. Whether its volcanos erupting or meteors hitting the earth or even computer-animated bugs, there's always a pair. The difference is usually that one plays as intelligence or serious drama and the other is popcorn fare. This movie, which battled the inventive and intelligent TRUMAN SHOW as a movie about real life on television, is of the popcorn kind.
This movie is hardly a mirrored image of THE TRUMAN SHOW. Matthew McConaughey, as Ed, KNOWS he's on camera, LIKES his fame, and comes to exploiting himself. The only similarity, I can think of, it having with TRUMAN, is the numerous scenes in which real people are watching.
EDTV is more of a satire of MTV's THE REAL WORLD, where producers try to exploit real dramas and conflicts of young people living together and sculpt them into likable and dislikable characters through editing.
EDTV is LIVE on the air, so it's hard to sculpt Ed or the people he comes in contact with, but that's what is so fun. The people in his hometown watch his travels eagerly on T.V. and when they see him come walking on their street, they stick their head out of the window and yell for Ed, so they can be on TV. There's even a gang that follows Ed from time to time, and he is even asked to give out autographs. Ed's phenomonal show gets so popular, that there is a poll of whether he should dump his shy girlfriend (Elfman) or go with a sassy model he met on the Tonight Show (Elizableth Hurley). The high percentage go for Hurley because they want to see someone sexier and more attractive on the show, no matter how well she fits with Ed. Hurley's model hardly cares. She just wants to be on television, and the (near)sex-scene they have, all recorded live(!) is RED HOT (something TRUMAN lacks).
I thought this movie would be more predictable than it is. You know Ed is going to eventually hate the popularity and fame and try to wiggle out of it as the network tries to keep him on to keep the high ratings, but how the movie ends was something even I couldn't have predicted. Jenna Elfman is very likable here, maybe because she isn't her usually aloof self. I like McConaughey, but he played his character so slacker-ish and gruff, he seemed drunk and high even as he was sweet and good-hearted. Harrelson shined, with the few scenes he had, as the brother who writes a book with the funniest title ever.Oh, and Jay Leno makes a very funny appearance.
In conclusion, this isn't better than THE TRUMAN SHOW, because it doesn't strive to be. It's a Ron Howard film, so it's quite high-lit even as it tries to be risque. There are many scenes that are touching and sad, especially the one containing Dennis Hopper, but ultimately it's a movie that has more strength on video than in theaters. It fits your television nicely (maybe because it was intended that way). Where TRUMAN deserves an A, this runner-up deserves a marginal B+.
Ron should be ashamed
gtr101728 November 2007
I might have given this movie a 3 instead of a 2 if it didn't have an agenda besides being pretty friggin' bad. Flush this one, WOW !! what a waste of time and money. I just can't say enough bad things about this movie. The only real question left is how did they get so much good talent to sign on to this loser ? The story line is just bankrupt of any mature thought. There is no moral. A movie this bad should at least have a message. I am sorry, I must have missed it. I believe some people have been living in the plastic universe of Southern Cal too long. I would be ashamed if I put the money up for this stinker. I may reconsider and drop this to a 1.
7 on a scale of 10
len-2115 April 2000
I liked Ed T.V. the more it went on. It is creative and unique. And, it was directed by Ron Howard. Those are what make it an ok film. However, I liked it less than I thought I would. It ended a strong 8, but started out as a 6. Once Ed went on T.V., it became increasingly interesting. Prior to that, it was boring.
Another problem I had with the movie were the support characters. I didn't find any of them particularly appealing - even Woody Harrelson (except his chicken dance which was classic). For the most part Rob Reiner, Dennis Hopper, Martin Landau, Ellen DeGeneres and Jenna Elfman were just adequate for the roles. Thus a downgrade of a point.
Something about the premise of the movie just left me feeling a little less than enthusiastic. I consistently had a difficult time accepting it. Consequently, I have to downgrade it a point on that too.
Add the slow start and you have a 7. Not a waste of time or money, but certainly not a movie you would want to see twice.
Another problem I had with the movie were the support characters. I didn't find any of them particularly appealing - even Woody Harrelson (except his chicken dance which was classic). For the most part Rob Reiner, Dennis Hopper, Martin Landau, Ellen DeGeneres and Jenna Elfman were just adequate for the roles. Thus a downgrade of a point.
Something about the premise of the movie just left me feeling a little less than enthusiastic. I consistently had a difficult time accepting it. Consequently, I have to downgrade it a point on that too.
Add the slow start and you have a 7. Not a waste of time or money, but certainly not a movie you would want to see twice.
Yadda, yadda, yuck!
mmeong19 March 1999
Upon entering the theatre, my expectations were minimal. I hoped to be entertained, at least. Alas, my fellow movie goers, it was not to be. And this is why: 1)The musical score left something to be desired. It neither reinforced the theme nor was it catchy (many of the songs are CONSTANTLY used).
2)I found myself agreeing with the mock panel of social commentators that the script called for; they deride "EdTV" for the self-glorifying "boobery" that it is. The audience should never find themselves agreeing with the opposing argument.
3)One shot of Clint Howard and everyone knows it's a Ron Howard film (not that it was much of a secret).
4)The many-faceted foibles of the lower classes is celebrated to the tune of Bill Clinton and Jerry Springer. If I want to see how tough it is on the bottom I'll just watch one of the aforementioned people.
5)This film's cup o' cliches overfloweth. Man rockets to stardom on the wings of neither effort nor perseverance and suddenly he discovers, life's not what it's cracked up to be--you can't have your cake and eat it too.
6)Jenna Elfman's ever (more like FOREVER) weepy eyes were irritating. The audience doesn't feel for her, let alone feel sorry for her. It got so bad you simply couldn't stand the sight of her "breaking heart" (and I do use that term loosely). Again, the audience agrees with the supposed "EdTV" fans who don't believe Sheri (Jenna's character) is good enough for Ed.
7)There is no rapport or sympathy for any of the characters, save one, Martin Landau. Perhaps it was indeed experience that allowed him to make us laugh at the right moments, but also pull our heartstrings when it was time.
Only see this movie if you are absolutely desperate (you know, a gun to the head, Friday night and no date) and even then--Don't blame me if you are just as disappointed as I am.
2)I found myself agreeing with the mock panel of social commentators that the script called for; they deride "EdTV" for the self-glorifying "boobery" that it is. The audience should never find themselves agreeing with the opposing argument.
3)One shot of Clint Howard and everyone knows it's a Ron Howard film (not that it was much of a secret).
4)The many-faceted foibles of the lower classes is celebrated to the tune of Bill Clinton and Jerry Springer. If I want to see how tough it is on the bottom I'll just watch one of the aforementioned people.
5)This film's cup o' cliches overfloweth. Man rockets to stardom on the wings of neither effort nor perseverance and suddenly he discovers, life's not what it's cracked up to be--you can't have your cake and eat it too.
6)Jenna Elfman's ever (more like FOREVER) weepy eyes were irritating. The audience doesn't feel for her, let alone feel sorry for her. It got so bad you simply couldn't stand the sight of her "breaking heart" (and I do use that term loosely). Again, the audience agrees with the supposed "EdTV" fans who don't believe Sheri (Jenna's character) is good enough for Ed.
7)There is no rapport or sympathy for any of the characters, save one, Martin Landau. Perhaps it was indeed experience that allowed him to make us laugh at the right moments, but also pull our heartstrings when it was time.
Only see this movie if you are absolutely desperate (you know, a gun to the head, Friday night and no date) and even then--Don't blame me if you are just as disappointed as I am.
Highly overlooked
Floated224 July 2019
Having not heard of this film until recently and not being too familiar with its concept but knowing it starred Matthew McConaughey. Decided to give it a watch and was not disappointed.
This may be a film which was specifically for its time since its on the basis and rise of reality tv and compared to today's day, there are plenty of reality tv shows. Perhaps it would not have been as realistic or made much sense if it were made on today's times.
McConaughey does a great performance all around as he carries the film. Woody Harrelson was also great as the biter older brother. Edtv is funnier than expected, the drama and romance do balance it out in the end and it's not completely predictable. All around it's an entertaining ride from start to finish and doesn't try hard for laughs.
This movie was apparently a big box office flop, with a budget of $80 million and only making $35 million worldwide. It's really fortunate that both Matthew McConaughey and director Ron Howard were able to survive following this flop. If anything this is a reason as to why Edtv is overlooked and better than given credit for. Well recommended.
This may be a film which was specifically for its time since its on the basis and rise of reality tv and compared to today's day, there are plenty of reality tv shows. Perhaps it would not have been as realistic or made much sense if it were made on today's times.
McConaughey does a great performance all around as he carries the film. Woody Harrelson was also great as the biter older brother. Edtv is funnier than expected, the drama and romance do balance it out in the end and it's not completely predictable. All around it's an entertaining ride from start to finish and doesn't try hard for laughs.
This movie was apparently a big box office flop, with a budget of $80 million and only making $35 million worldwide. It's really fortunate that both Matthew McConaughey and director Ron Howard were able to survive following this flop. If anything this is a reason as to why Edtv is overlooked and better than given credit for. Well recommended.
A Great Reality-TV Show Type Film.
famousgir18 July 2001
Edtv is a great film. How can you not love a film the brilliant Ron Howard directs. Matthew McConaughey is great as Ed the man who has to be followed and watched 24 Hours a day and Jenna Elfman is also really good as Shari, Ed's girlfriend and the ex off Ed's brother Ray. (Woody Harrelson.) Anyway, the film is lots of fun and great to see what Ed gets up to next. Edtv is also much better than The Truman Show, another Reality-TV Show Type Film. I give the Edtv a deserving 8/10
dredTV
jbels7 May 1999
This is one of the worst of 1999. It is a mean-spirited, meandering farce which offers none of the usual laughs from the writing team of Ganz and Mandel. It has been reported that Ron Howard was upset at the way Universal handled the film, but who's really to blame. All energies were put into saying that "this isn't The Truman Show" but it is The Truman Show, and MTV's The Real World, only it's no fun.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
