Louis trying to revive the spirit of "Golden Age" cinema with his filmmaking style gives the film a welcome uniqueness, but its appropriateness is kind of questionable. As it usually is with his work (Horace & Pete, Louie), the film gives him a platform to spew out his thoughts and views on the world and society in an entertaining manner. That being said the film lacks a clear message or point. At least it introduces some intriguing well rounded and balanced arguements, discussions on "current" societal issues (weirdly reflecting the reprehensible actions Louis made in his past). Overall, seperating the art from the person behind it, I Love You, Daddy is an original and wothwhile watch just based on its great screenplay and fantastic acting alone. I would recommend seeing it if you get the chance.
32 Reviews
Mostly Weird
nickolette2218 December 2017
When I saw the rating before seeing the movie, I got a bit defensive. It is so low because of the people's inability to distinguish between the person and the art. American puritanism is at play again here.
Then I saw the movie. It was weird. From the very beginning there were some obvious inadequacies in the editing and the acting. This might be taken as something charming, something unpolished on purpose, may be a stylistic decision. At times the movie feels like a movie from the 40s (the scenes from the birthday party and just afterwards with John Malkovich); at other times it nods to Woody Allen. But what makes it hard to watch it in isolation from the current events, is the fact that the movie is so much in a dialog with them. Mindfuckingly so. It examines the grey areas when it comes to consent, signals people give in the flirting game, what is objectively appropriate (if there is such a thing) and what is acceptable from society. The latter is as divided as its members.
As for Louis CK's acting, the confused expression worked better in the context of the series Louis, but it could hardly carry a whole movie.
Overall, it is an interesting film to watch. I am still a fan and a supporter and wish to have the opportunity to review many future Louis CK's projects.
Then I saw the movie. It was weird. From the very beginning there were some obvious inadequacies in the editing and the acting. This might be taken as something charming, something unpolished on purpose, may be a stylistic decision. At times the movie feels like a movie from the 40s (the scenes from the birthday party and just afterwards with John Malkovich); at other times it nods to Woody Allen. But what makes it hard to watch it in isolation from the current events, is the fact that the movie is so much in a dialog with them. Mindfuckingly so. It examines the grey areas when it comes to consent, signals people give in the flirting game, what is objectively appropriate (if there is such a thing) and what is acceptable from society. The latter is as divided as its members.
As for Louis CK's acting, the confused expression worked better in the context of the series Louis, but it could hardly carry a whole movie.
Overall, it is an interesting film to watch. I am still a fan and a supporter and wish to have the opportunity to review many future Louis CK's projects.
Been done before, better. Not very good....
slaphappy50001 October 2018
I'm a big fan of his show and stand-up, but this movie just misses somehow... i know it seems ridiculous cuz it's his movie, but, even w/the glasses, he seems miscast. art is hit or miss, and this just doesn't click for me. scenes and dialogue seem a bit forced, performances are a bit odd/off. I love the subject matter but it's an homage to better (obviously woody allen, for instance) films, and does not measure up in comparison. manhattan, for instance, is 50 X better than this movie.
For its failing its still pretty good
stevelivesey672 February 2022
CKs homage to Woody Allen is amusing but just not funny enough. It feels a lot like his TV show with it's slow burn, comedy of mannerisms and reactions but it lacks pace in a feature film. CK actually edited it, which sort of explains it.
Louis does Woody
dougmacdonaldburr3 March 2018
It is a shame this film was not properly released. I mostly enjoyed it.
Louis seemed to have a clear idea of what he wanted stylistically. The settings are elite parts of New York and one scene in Paris. It is all shot in black and white. The whole film seems like Louis C K is trying to make a Woody Allen film and it mostly works.
The cast is great and they all do a great job. Rose Byrne plays a charming love interest. Louis character gets bullied and harassed by pretty much every female character, but, the following three are the most domineering. His ex wife played by Helen Hunt is by far the most outright abusive. His business partner played by Edie Falco is always nagging him to do things. At times she is in the right, but, it doesn't make her any less annoying. His ex girlfriend is played by Pamela Adlon. This character is kind of obnoxious and not nearly as charming as she thinks she is. The actresses might all be nice people, but I found their characters very annoying. Louis' character is okay, at times I sympathised with him and at other times I wanted to shake some sense into him. He is okay at acting, but, his delivery is nowhere near as good as his stand up. I'm sure if he keeps working at it he will get better. Charlie Day really is a scene stealer. He has some of the best lines in the film and biggest laughs. I thought John Malkovich and Chloe Grace Mortez were the best. Their scenes together were my favourites. He has to be one of the most charming actors in the business and she is already one of the best actresses of her generation. They were able to take what could have been a very creepy dynamic and actually make it charming and believable.
My main issues are with the plot. There were a lot of times I wanted Louis' character to stand up for himself more. I also think the ending could have been better. The film was entertaining enough, but, it didn't really express any clear message.
For his first proper film, Louis did well. I don't know if he will ever be back after his scandal, but if he is given another chance, he has the potential to make some great films.
The cast is great and they all do a great job. Rose Byrne plays a charming love interest. Louis character gets bullied and harassed by pretty much every female character, but, the following three are the most domineering. His ex wife played by Helen Hunt is by far the most outright abusive. His business partner played by Edie Falco is always nagging him to do things. At times she is in the right, but, it doesn't make her any less annoying. His ex girlfriend is played by Pamela Adlon. This character is kind of obnoxious and not nearly as charming as she thinks she is. The actresses might all be nice people, but I found their characters very annoying. Louis' character is okay, at times I sympathised with him and at other times I wanted to shake some sense into him. He is okay at acting, but, his delivery is nowhere near as good as his stand up. I'm sure if he keeps working at it he will get better. Charlie Day really is a scene stealer. He has some of the best lines in the film and biggest laughs. I thought John Malkovich and Chloe Grace Mortez were the best. Their scenes together were my favourites. He has to be one of the most charming actors in the business and she is already one of the best actresses of her generation. They were able to take what could have been a very creepy dynamic and actually make it charming and believable.
My main issues are with the plot. There were a lot of times I wanted Louis' character to stand up for himself more. I also think the ending could have been better. The film was entertaining enough, but, it didn't really express any clear message.
For his first proper film, Louis did well. I don't know if he will ever be back after his scandal, but if he is given another chance, he has the potential to make some great films.
An almost 2-hour long and entertaining episode of "Louis"
kylo7726 January 2019
If you like CK's "Louis" tv show then you will also like this, as it actually works pretty much like an extended episode of that series (I mean even Pamela Adlon didn't bother to act slightly different). If you haven't seen the tv show the movie will probably play out as some sort of watered-down version of Woody Allen's Deconstructing Harry or similar. There are some weird shots and editing (probably due to the movie not being publicly released when it had to) which along with the grayscale tint makes for an interesting visual style.
As for the story itself, and without spoiling anything, CK uses the topic of bad parenting as the driver to preach about the issue of preconceived notions, wrong assumptions and poor judgments that we usually hold against people. Charlie Day character's over the top jokes and raunchy language (typical of CK) sort of embodies us, the audience, in that disparaging way of criticizing someone else's life.
Chloe Moretz wasn't really appropriate for her role but is competent enough. John Malkovich should certainly provide a few laughs with the brutal honesty of his character, delivered in the most exquisite passive-aggressive style.
Overall a fun film to watch if you like the aforementioned type of comedy.
As for the story itself, and without spoiling anything, CK uses the topic of bad parenting as the driver to preach about the issue of preconceived notions, wrong assumptions and poor judgments that we usually hold against people. Charlie Day character's over the top jokes and raunchy language (typical of CK) sort of embodies us, the audience, in that disparaging way of criticizing someone else's life.
Chloe Moretz wasn't really appropriate for her role but is competent enough. John Malkovich should certainly provide a few laughs with the brutal honesty of his character, delivered in the most exquisite passive-aggressive style.
Overall a fun film to watch if you like the aforementioned type of comedy.
A glimpse of Louis CK at the heigh of his power, just before the fall
Criticalstaff10 September 2020
It is somewhat unfortunate what happened to Louis CK. I liked him as a comedian and as an artist. The Louie TV show was excellent. I was disappointed he turned out to be a real life creep. Yet, it does add something to this movie. It makes it a psychological case study.
On the surface, if you're unaware of who CK is or what he did, this movie is pretty straight-forward. It is social commentary not-so-hidden inside a romantic-type movie satire. Stylistically it mocks and spoils classical romantic comedy tropes. Thematically, it wants to be a scathing commentary on modern Hollywood social norms and behaviors. However, that is where the CK me-too scandal comes in, and makes things remarkably interesting.
The grand irony is that the scandal surfaced shortly before the movie was released. The movie is really the interesting last testament of the now defunct career of Louis CK. The movie was written, directed and entirely financed by the comedian. In other words, this reads as the artist at the absolute height of his powers. It is a movie without compromise. It is the movie it wanted to make. The movie more than others, is a transparent naked expression of its artist.
Therefore it is ironic, and at least interesting, that the movie focuses on sexual attraction, consent, morality and so on. The movie describes and comments exactly on what Louis CK was involved in. Of course the moral of the film is completely invalidated, by his real life actions. However, I think the movie gives amazing insights on Louis CK and his views on morality. You almost have a sense throughout the film that he is aware of his bad behavior and that his time is coming.
The character of Glenn, played by Louis CK, almost works as an admission of guilt. Glenn is the monster that I felt CK wanted to confess he his. I got the feeling that CK wanted his avatar in the movie to be Leslie. In the movie Leslie has a lot of qualities that CK has celebrated in his used-to-be amazing show Louie. He is genius writer that does not, in the movie at least, have negative flaws. Glenn is the depressed writer that knows that he is behind his apex. It feels like two sides of Louis CK: on the one hand the unstoppable famous comedian, on the other the despicable creep hack. The genuine talent versus the deep impulses. The funny insights against the misunderstandings of basic decency.
Unfortunately, this only an ex-post breakdown. It would have resulted in a great film, but it is not the case. Firstly, the movie is not about that at all and secondly, Louis CK did in real life far worse than what the film wants to portray. It is hard to separate the art from the artist on this one.
On the surface, if you're unaware of who CK is or what he did, this movie is pretty straight-forward. It is social commentary not-so-hidden inside a romantic-type movie satire. Stylistically it mocks and spoils classical romantic comedy tropes. Thematically, it wants to be a scathing commentary on modern Hollywood social norms and behaviors. However, that is where the CK me-too scandal comes in, and makes things remarkably interesting.
The grand irony is that the scandal surfaced shortly before the movie was released. The movie is really the interesting last testament of the now defunct career of Louis CK. The movie was written, directed and entirely financed by the comedian. In other words, this reads as the artist at the absolute height of his powers. It is a movie without compromise. It is the movie it wanted to make. The movie more than others, is a transparent naked expression of its artist.
Therefore it is ironic, and at least interesting, that the movie focuses on sexual attraction, consent, morality and so on. The movie describes and comments exactly on what Louis CK was involved in. Of course the moral of the film is completely invalidated, by his real life actions. However, I think the movie gives amazing insights on Louis CK and his views on morality. You almost have a sense throughout the film that he is aware of his bad behavior and that his time is coming.
The character of Glenn, played by Louis CK, almost works as an admission of guilt. Glenn is the monster that I felt CK wanted to confess he his. I got the feeling that CK wanted his avatar in the movie to be Leslie. In the movie Leslie has a lot of qualities that CK has celebrated in his used-to-be amazing show Louie. He is genius writer that does not, in the movie at least, have negative flaws. Glenn is the depressed writer that knows that he is behind his apex. It feels like two sides of Louis CK: on the one hand the unstoppable famous comedian, on the other the despicable creep hack. The genuine talent versus the deep impulses. The funny insights against the misunderstandings of basic decency.
Unfortunately, this only an ex-post breakdown. It would have resulted in a great film, but it is not the case. Firstly, the movie is not about that at all and secondly, Louis CK did in real life far worse than what the film wants to portray. It is hard to separate the art from the artist on this one.
The best Woody Allen movie he would never make
jellopuke3 January 2018
Deals with all of the creepiness of Woody's stuff, issues of parenting, how men treat women, letting go, growing up, and more. A really great movie even though Charlie Day was a tad unnecessary and a couple of the deep focus shots were obvious process compositions. Don't dismiss it because C.K. is a creepy, this is solid stuff.
It's not Horace and Pete... but not terrible either.
assman768 February 2018
The film unfortunately doesn't hit as hard as I had hoped. The writing in a single exchange from Horace and Pete is superior in every way. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film, but it never hits any sort of high. Not a single conversation is thought provoking in any real manner. The questions this film raises aren't well defined, and the comedic value is missing altogether. I am not sure what Louis was attempting here, but perhaps my review is marred by revelations about Louis that I simply can't get around.
Sadly it's really bad
pjohnson-9666412 December 2017
So much wasted talent. John Malkovich, Charlie Day, Albert Brooks, Edie Falco, Helen Hunt...no one could save this film. The writing was incredibly poor, especially for Louis C.K.'s standard. The dialogue was jilted. The direction was generic. The music was out of place. The black & white cinematography looked like a bad sitcom trying to do a one-off tribute episode to Children of Paradise. Save yourself the 2 hours and don't bother.
A daring subject fearlessly handled
yogesh-318 December 2017
Ok, the film was imperfectly and somewhat hastily delivered and does not deserve a high rating in its present form. The editing is decidedly uneven and Louie's sidekick's (I forget his name) performance entirely unnecessary, gross and completely over the top. This character actually contributes absolutely nothing to the film and detracts badly from its important message in these turbulent times.
The film's obvious weaknesses are most unfortunate, as the material itself is thought provoking, intelligently presented and actually NEEDS to be discussed this fearlessly, this openly in a time, where closed-minded prejudice and irrational fear inhibit rational thought.
Louie's fearlessness in the face of all the angry adversity should actually be admired if we dare to admit for one single moment to what extent our own sexual inclinations are forces that exist that are almost unmanageable. The scene of the girl's apparent surrender to John Malkovich is brilliantly depicted and, in a way, says it all. Yogesh
The film's obvious weaknesses are most unfortunate, as the material itself is thought provoking, intelligently presented and actually NEEDS to be discussed this fearlessly, this openly in a time, where closed-minded prejudice and irrational fear inhibit rational thought.
Louie's fearlessness in the face of all the angry adversity should actually be admired if we dare to admit for one single moment to what extent our own sexual inclinations are forces that exist that are almost unmanageable. The scene of the girl's apparent surrender to John Malkovich is brilliantly depicted and, in a way, says it all. Yogesh
"Everybody's a pervert."
Bored_Dragon15 March 2023
People unable to separate the work of art from the private life of the author boycott this film only to their own detriment. Maybe "I Love You, Daddy" is not a masterpiece of the seventh art, but it is certainly a film worth watching, an intelligent and brave story that makes you think and refuses to bow to puritanism and the modern version of the witch hunt.
A successful television scriptwriter (Louis C. K.) is a spineless divorced man who has turned his daughter (Chloë Grace Moretz) into a spoiled manipulator. But when his seventeen-year-old princess begins to fall for his idol, a seventy-year-old filmmaker with a reputation as a pedophile (John Malkovich), he realizes he has to tighten the reins.
Parenthood, growing up (both daughter and father), diverse male-female relationships and bridging generational gaps, drawing the line between conservative prejudices and common sense, an obvious thematic homage to Woody Allen (who was offered the role, which luckily was eventually played by Malkovich), and a stylistic and acting homage to the golden age of Hollywood, all of this is very nicely packed into an atmospheric and somewhat philosophical film, which many criticized for not having a clear point and message. But I think that this is precisely where its strength lies, because life itself does not have a clear point and message, and this film portrays it very honestly and without restraint.
Old-fashioned and modern at the same time, this is a movie you'll love if you loved Woody Allen, or maybe the TV series "Californication," with which it also shares actress Pamela Adlon. I watched the movie primarily because of Chloe and, although I have no major complaints about her performance, I was much more impressed by John Malkovich and Rose Byrne, and Louis himself in roles of screenwriter, director, and lead actor. Warm recommendation.
7/10.
A successful television scriptwriter (Louis C. K.) is a spineless divorced man who has turned his daughter (Chloë Grace Moretz) into a spoiled manipulator. But when his seventeen-year-old princess begins to fall for his idol, a seventy-year-old filmmaker with a reputation as a pedophile (John Malkovich), he realizes he has to tighten the reins.
Parenthood, growing up (both daughter and father), diverse male-female relationships and bridging generational gaps, drawing the line between conservative prejudices and common sense, an obvious thematic homage to Woody Allen (who was offered the role, which luckily was eventually played by Malkovich), and a stylistic and acting homage to the golden age of Hollywood, all of this is very nicely packed into an atmospheric and somewhat philosophical film, which many criticized for not having a clear point and message. But I think that this is precisely where its strength lies, because life itself does not have a clear point and message, and this film portrays it very honestly and without restraint.
Old-fashioned and modern at the same time, this is a movie you'll love if you loved Woody Allen, or maybe the TV series "Californication," with which it also shares actress Pamela Adlon. I watched the movie primarily because of Chloe and, although I have no major complaints about her performance, I was much more impressed by John Malkovich and Rose Byrne, and Louis himself in roles of screenwriter, director, and lead actor. Warm recommendation.
7/10.
Either wilfully uncomfortable, or worse, obliviously uncomfortable viewing
Rob-O-Cop13 December 2017
The timing of this movie could not have been more uncomfortable awkward or career destroyingly, and willfully on point. I'm guessing it may well not be the latter, which makes it even worse.
The whole thing makes your head spin with contradictions which are mostlikely not.
Why would anyone in their right mind choose to make a movie on this topic, at this time, with his history? Why? Why? C.K has in the past been an insightful and honest comedian, on the cutting edge of social issues and pushing comedy boundaries, so why did he get it so wrong this time?
Did he do it on purpose to make a point? Is this all intentional? Are allegations against him fabricated to promote a point (there's a big component of masturbation in front of people in the movie) and cause controversy? Is he taking parody of the messed up way Hollywood acts to an extreme to make a point. Would he do that? Are we witnessing dangerous cinema? Is this some Kaufman level elaborate plan?
I guess the real cruncher here is that the movie fails purely on movie terms, it's a surprisingly badly made movie with mostly unfunny script, weirdly bad performances, C.K walking in a performance as himself, the stylistic choices of black and white photography and cheesy 40s orchestral score fall flat and worse seem contrived and pointless.
This massive failure has got to be costing someone a lot of money.
I is so confusing, conflicting, and uncomfortable, (if it is a clever movie what exactly is its point, what was C.K trying to say with it, since his past efforts have all tried to say something) or worse it is exactly what it looks like, a blind, self-unaware, stupid, oblivious piece of bad cinema that wastes a lot of resources and talent on the most awkwardly badly timed piece of cinema since Jerry Lewis made 'The Day the Clown Cried' and didn't release it. Based purely on the bad watch this movie is (removed from the controversy and bad timing if you could possibly do that) this film should have followed Lewis's path and stayed in a dusty cupboard.
Are you a big fan of Louis' work?
rakeshgajula17 March 2019
I must say I enjoyed this film thoroughly. Louis put real hard work into writing the script. I came across this film after watching all the popular TV shows and movies. The theme of the film is black and white and 35mm; Loui wanted his film different, classic and nostalgic.
a pretty good watch
julianmx93-4 August 2019
It's hard to watch this movie without the homages and similarities to Woody Allen, whether it be in storyline or characters, this movie actually is a good watch if you like Louis C.K's or Woody's work. There are many funny moments, many ironic to what happened in real life when the movie was supposed to release. I thought it was a very good effort by Louis, it wasn't as precise or on the money as his show but it was well worth the watch whenever or however you can watch it. 7/10
I liked the story
Gordon-1123 February 2018
This film tells the story of a script writer, whose seems to hot the wall with the women around him.
The story is actually quite good. It is interesting to see how inept he is at saying no to his daughter, and also very interesting to see the way John Malkovich's character give him the cold shoulder. There is a tinge of Woody Allen style of sarcasm and neuroticism. I liked the film.
The story is actually quite good. It is interesting to see how inept he is at saying no to his daughter, and also very interesting to see the way John Malkovich's character give him the cold shoulder. There is a tinge of Woody Allen style of sarcasm and neuroticism. I liked the film.
I want to review but where can I watch
ntutino1 February 2022
Louis C.K.'s Swan Song?
Brakathor5 July 2018
It's sad that we have to ask the question, but these days seeing as how a man's healthy sex life can so readily be the pretext to seemingly perpetual damnation without charges or trial, in extremely ironic fashion the very scandal surrounding Louis completely renders redundant the entire purpose of the film and its message. The film comes across as episodic in nature, and doesn't really have much of a plot. What it is, is an existential exploration of relationships between men and women, be it father/daughter, friend/friend, husband/wife, boss/employee, and everything in between, mostly all focused around the ever pervasive sexual tension that exists therein. The main question the film postulates upon is "what does and does not constitute leud behavior, and in those situations who really is at fault?" Perhaps this is the conversation that SHOULD have been had in our culture, only now there's no way to have it.
The majority of people seem to be content to give the finger to the man, the film, and most importantly the question itself, and if that's not how they feel, they're TERRIFIED to say otherwise, and why? Because looking at yourself in the mirror as you sit back and judge others is hard. THAT'S what the film is about, and for that reason it's a complete flop, not just in terms of reception, but in terms of value and purpose. At the end of the day, it really is just a lot of dithering about things that we already know and are conscious of deep down, and there are just too few left to appreciate it for what it is. Hypocrisy is the word of the day here for everybody involved. Louis C.K. kind of comes across like he's pontificating his moral enlightenment from a pulpit of moral superiority, and expecting a round of applause for it. Essentially: "I know I'm flawed but aren't I such a great person for pointing out all of our flaws and owning up to them?"
Indeed, THIS was the film that was going to be the one that everyone lapped up, and showered with awards and adulation for tackling a "deep and troubling subject," where Chloe Grace Moretz was going to be slated for an Oscar nomination. No offence to the actress, but ABSOLUTELY ridiculous in my opinion, as this was not a demanding role by any stretch of the imagination. What happened to all of that? The answer is, nobody knows. Either you thought she was worthy of best actress and deserved to be awarded accordingly, or your award ceremony is worth NOTHING. Either you thought the film was worthy of accolades and proceeded to award the director accordingly, or your award ceremony is worth NOTHING. If the academy awards has nothing whatsoever to do with actual artistic merit, and it has simply to do with rewarding great deeds and whoever is the most morally virtuous of them all, then not a single actor or director should be given a single academy award EVER, as there are far more virtuous people in the world than any actor. If you can't separate the art from the man, then you're not a real award ceremony.
The fact is, the WHOLE scandal and all parties involved account for a parade of moralizing self-adulating b.s.; that's ALL this is in the end. This film WOULD have been overhyped and overrated; instead it's been unduly snubbed completely, and getting back to the real question, how do we truly rate this film now, and the budding career of Louis C.K. as a feature film director, cut short in its infancy? In short, this film is NOT a masterpiece. It's very flawed both in terms of writing and plot structure. It shows a LOT of room for him to grow as a director, however it also shows a lot of promise.
In terms of writing, yes a lot of it is funny and witty... OF COURSE it is. For me the main problem is Louis C.K. is really really bad at character development. When every SINGLE character talks EXACTLY like Louis C.K., not only is it distracting and impossible to miss, but for one, it's extremely unattractive hearing four different women talk like stereotypical man's man dudes. I can understand why this would have been hard to correct. Louis C.K. is so used to using language to express a fairly mundane idea or concept in a way that just sounds funny. To a certain extent, this would involve making a perfect comedic exchange on paper less funny because character X just wouldn't EVER talk with that level of comedic sophistication when character Y would. Sitcom characters vs. movie characters, basically. Either way, I found most characters in the film to be fairly unlikeable, which for a film like this, is a problem. Charlie Day's character is INSANELY obnoxious in this movie. He's one of those guys who clearly thinks all he has to do to be funny is overact in every single scene, one of the dime a dozen comic relief actors who play in one flop of a movie and are NEVER heard from again. He is that guy (hopefully).
In terms of directing, Louis made a couple of, I guess what would be considered bold moves: shooting in black and white, relying heavily on a classical film score, and trying really hard to give the film a retro feel, while still remaining contemporary. Did he succeed, and were these good decisions? I'll admit that the answer is EXTREMELY subjective so I'll say yes these elements DO tie together in a cohesive way, but because of the contemporary sitcom-like elements of the film, it also comes across as a bit pretentious. Personally I'm not a fan of it at all. To me this is all tinsel. It's kind of like painting over cracks of an unsound foundation with glitter. As far as I'm concerned there's NEVER a good reason to shoot in black and white, for one. In the early days they shot in black and white because the technology for color was not yet perfected. That's ALL that is, and so far I've NEVER heard an artistic reason to shoot in black and white that didn't sound ridiculous to me. Directors who do this are usually trying to lend a sort of artificial gravitas to a film that has some undeniably cheap elements to it, which they don't have the skill to iron out any other way. Russ Meyer did it, and now Louis C.K. did it too. It's really not as deep as you want to believe.
To me the worst aspect is he all too often tries to shovel too many plot devices into the same scene. This was common in early films: "Protagonist receives important phone call. Key character arrives unannounced to deliver important plot point. Second key character arrives unannounced to deliver important plot point," and it's all within the same scene, this same pattern repeating itself over and over again. The movie comes across as a cheap TV sitcom, particularly in the first half, for this reason. The film as a whole is clear tribute to early Woody Allen films, but Woody Allen, Louis C.K. is not, at least not yet. The script is funny and has some real gems in it; it just needed a more sophisticated package to be considered anything bordering on "great" or a "masterpiece." Will Louis C.K. ever be able to achieve that level of skill as a director? Sadly, we may never know.
The majority of people seem to be content to give the finger to the man, the film, and most importantly the question itself, and if that's not how they feel, they're TERRIFIED to say otherwise, and why? Because looking at yourself in the mirror as you sit back and judge others is hard. THAT'S what the film is about, and for that reason it's a complete flop, not just in terms of reception, but in terms of value and purpose. At the end of the day, it really is just a lot of dithering about things that we already know and are conscious of deep down, and there are just too few left to appreciate it for what it is. Hypocrisy is the word of the day here for everybody involved. Louis C.K. kind of comes across like he's pontificating his moral enlightenment from a pulpit of moral superiority, and expecting a round of applause for it. Essentially: "I know I'm flawed but aren't I such a great person for pointing out all of our flaws and owning up to them?"
Indeed, THIS was the film that was going to be the one that everyone lapped up, and showered with awards and adulation for tackling a "deep and troubling subject," where Chloe Grace Moretz was going to be slated for an Oscar nomination. No offence to the actress, but ABSOLUTELY ridiculous in my opinion, as this was not a demanding role by any stretch of the imagination. What happened to all of that? The answer is, nobody knows. Either you thought she was worthy of best actress and deserved to be awarded accordingly, or your award ceremony is worth NOTHING. Either you thought the film was worthy of accolades and proceeded to award the director accordingly, or your award ceremony is worth NOTHING. If the academy awards has nothing whatsoever to do with actual artistic merit, and it has simply to do with rewarding great deeds and whoever is the most morally virtuous of them all, then not a single actor or director should be given a single academy award EVER, as there are far more virtuous people in the world than any actor. If you can't separate the art from the man, then you're not a real award ceremony.
The fact is, the WHOLE scandal and all parties involved account for a parade of moralizing self-adulating b.s.; that's ALL this is in the end. This film WOULD have been overhyped and overrated; instead it's been unduly snubbed completely, and getting back to the real question, how do we truly rate this film now, and the budding career of Louis C.K. as a feature film director, cut short in its infancy? In short, this film is NOT a masterpiece. It's very flawed both in terms of writing and plot structure. It shows a LOT of room for him to grow as a director, however it also shows a lot of promise.
In terms of writing, yes a lot of it is funny and witty... OF COURSE it is. For me the main problem is Louis C.K. is really really bad at character development. When every SINGLE character talks EXACTLY like Louis C.K., not only is it distracting and impossible to miss, but for one, it's extremely unattractive hearing four different women talk like stereotypical man's man dudes. I can understand why this would have been hard to correct. Louis C.K. is so used to using language to express a fairly mundane idea or concept in a way that just sounds funny. To a certain extent, this would involve making a perfect comedic exchange on paper less funny because character X just wouldn't EVER talk with that level of comedic sophistication when character Y would. Sitcom characters vs. movie characters, basically. Either way, I found most characters in the film to be fairly unlikeable, which for a film like this, is a problem. Charlie Day's character is INSANELY obnoxious in this movie. He's one of those guys who clearly thinks all he has to do to be funny is overact in every single scene, one of the dime a dozen comic relief actors who play in one flop of a movie and are NEVER heard from again. He is that guy (hopefully).
In terms of directing, Louis made a couple of, I guess what would be considered bold moves: shooting in black and white, relying heavily on a classical film score, and trying really hard to give the film a retro feel, while still remaining contemporary. Did he succeed, and were these good decisions? I'll admit that the answer is EXTREMELY subjective so I'll say yes these elements DO tie together in a cohesive way, but because of the contemporary sitcom-like elements of the film, it also comes across as a bit pretentious. Personally I'm not a fan of it at all. To me this is all tinsel. It's kind of like painting over cracks of an unsound foundation with glitter. As far as I'm concerned there's NEVER a good reason to shoot in black and white, for one. In the early days they shot in black and white because the technology for color was not yet perfected. That's ALL that is, and so far I've NEVER heard an artistic reason to shoot in black and white that didn't sound ridiculous to me. Directors who do this are usually trying to lend a sort of artificial gravitas to a film that has some undeniably cheap elements to it, which they don't have the skill to iron out any other way. Russ Meyer did it, and now Louis C.K. did it too. It's really not as deep as you want to believe.
To me the worst aspect is he all too often tries to shovel too many plot devices into the same scene. This was common in early films: "Protagonist receives important phone call. Key character arrives unannounced to deliver important plot point. Second key character arrives unannounced to deliver important plot point," and it's all within the same scene, this same pattern repeating itself over and over again. The movie comes across as a cheap TV sitcom, particularly in the first half, for this reason. The film as a whole is clear tribute to early Woody Allen films, but Woody Allen, Louis C.K. is not, at least not yet. The script is funny and has some real gems in it; it just needed a more sophisticated package to be considered anything bordering on "great" or a "masterpiece." Will Louis C.K. ever be able to achieve that level of skill as a director? Sadly, we may never know.
I Had To Watch it Twice In Order To Love It
poindexter_mellon2 August 2018
The first time i watched this i didn't really like it. I think i was expecting something else, something funnier, something like a Louis CK episode on TV. This movie made me uncomfortable and i didn't want that.
So i watched it again a week later, just for something to do. This time it was a whole different experience. It's a great movie, very thought-provoking, kind of sad, kind of funny, kind of like real life in a way that few movies are anymore. Characters that i found annoying the 1st time were not annoying at all the 2nd time. Weird.
This movie deserves a major release. I mean get over it, get a grip, grow a spine, keep an open mind and watch something that might challenge you just a little bit. In time people will recognize this as the great film it is. That's my prediction. It'll take time because most people suck, but mark my words, this is one of those movies that they'll be talking about decades from now when they wonder what the hell was wrong with the idiots in 2018 who essentially banned it for no good reason.
So i watched it again a week later, just for something to do. This time it was a whole different experience. It's a great movie, very thought-provoking, kind of sad, kind of funny, kind of like real life in a way that few movies are anymore. Characters that i found annoying the 1st time were not annoying at all the 2nd time. Weird.
This movie deserves a major release. I mean get over it, get a grip, grow a spine, keep an open mind and watch something that might challenge you just a little bit. In time people will recognize this as the great film it is. That's my prediction. It'll take time because most people suck, but mark my words, this is one of those movies that they'll be talking about decades from now when they wonder what the hell was wrong with the idiots in 2018 who essentially banned it for no good reason.
This is just a waste of time
alanstapelberg1 January 2019
A 1950's romantic drama about the same things it was banned for
Features_Creatures24 March 2019
I hope this movie is looked back upon in a very unique way in film history. It was essentially blacklisted, justified or not, for it's creator abusing his privilege and gender, which is exactly what the film was about. It's clearly somewhat autobiographical, I think some part of him knew his career was over and wanted to get this film out just in time. He was two weeks late. The themes of obscured sexual morals, patriarchy, privilege, male dominance is the core of the film, toxic masculinity. It would have actually done a lot to add to the dialog at the time around the "me too" movement, as a man who was admitting to doing these things growing and coming to terms with it, instead of silencing him. I understand why it was buried but I think that was a mistake and adds to the idea that the current culture is not an open forum. There are many ways this film could be interpreted to make him look worse or better, but we are all adults, we should be able to see it. You can find it online if you know how. It's excellent, a bit sloppy here and there, (blocking errors/script supervision, Pamela Aldon being too similar to her role in Louis takes you out of it a bit) but it's a self funded independent debut feature shot on black and white film by a stand up comedian and a television crew in 2017 and it's beautiful and heartfelt and that's a amazing. It is actually an extremely important film and should be seen no matter how you feel about the social issues surrounding it. Also comparing it to woody Allen is lazy and not at all accurate, it's much closer to 40's/50's American drama romances, Douglas Sirk, Howard hawks, George cukor, Preston sturges. Kubrick's Lolita is obviously a HUGE influence. Chloe grace moretz is basically playing a version of sue Lyons' Lolita and looks and acts much like her. There are moments in the film that are clear homages to that film.
A Real Snooze Fest
mrgolmos16 January 2018
Contemporary Masterpiece
ashwin-siva13 December 2017
This movie explores gender dynamics in contemporary society in a refreshing unapologetic fashion. The truths and fallacies exposed in the movie are a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow you must. This movie is not meant to be liked by everyone, but I am glad I live in a world where this exists, albeit in a dirty corner for the deplorables.
The support cast including Pamela Adlon, Charlie Day, Edie Falco & John Malkovich all play their parts to the tee. The movie works on so many levels; the references to Woody Allen (B&W New York, the glasses), the awkward silences and cringe-worthy moments are just cinematic gold IMHO.
The Louis CK scandal is just the icing on the cake, which makes true life seem stranger than fiction. The only reason for the poor 6.1 rating is due to self-policing political correctness and radicalized feminist imperative that governs our modern psyche. I can only hope that the PC-brigade and femnazis don't push Louis out of Hollywood for good, because that would be a real shame and a crime.
The support cast including Pamela Adlon, Charlie Day, Edie Falco & John Malkovich all play their parts to the tee. The movie works on so many levels; the references to Woody Allen (B&W New York, the glasses), the awkward silences and cringe-worthy moments are just cinematic gold IMHO.
The Louis CK scandal is just the icing on the cake, which makes true life seem stranger than fiction. The only reason for the poor 6.1 rating is due to self-policing political correctness and radicalized feminist imperative that governs our modern psyche. I can only hope that the PC-brigade and femnazis don't push Louis out of Hollywood for good, because that would be a real shame and a crime.
this movie is smart and funny
johnnyblazepw-276-27181530 December 2017
A waste of amazing film, collecting dust-because people have chastised a phenomenaly gifted writer and director
spadedkween7 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This film is spectacularly beautiful, boldly modern, and classically elegant all at the same time. The black and white 35mm film makes this film feel more real than anything in recent times, and draws you in visually to a place that feels fresh and raw, but also comforting and nostalgic. The script dares to go to places seen in modern times as risqué,off-limits, or bluntly put; forbidden- - all the while showing the lighter side of a father and daughter stutter stepping what it means to enter/guide ones child to "adulthood" in the literal sense of the word. A father wrestles with wanting what's best for his daughter's future,while fearing the worst and being afraid to loose her love and a connection he holds so dear. While his daughter wrestles with her own coming of age issues, struggling to strike a balance of finding herself and yet begging silently to be put her place by her well meaning, but totally clueless, yet loving father. Things become even more complicated than the typical senior year/18th birthday milestones- when her fathers idol, and a man 50 years her senior with a habit of courting barley legal young women enters the picture-turning everything on its head. From walking on eggshells, to holding his ground-Louis C.K.s character manages to find himself as a father, while loosing himself professionally. Chloë does an amazing job of being an intitled-new money New York City teen socialite, who has no grasp of what adulthood means or what her future holds, to learning to stand on her own two feet and stop looking to the men in her life to define her. Excellent film all around, a complete and utter shame it hasn't been shared with the world.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
