Bardlerx Strictly average movie

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

johnpmoseley Oh man. This is painful, and not just for the surrounding scandal. Louis' work is super important to me, his TV series Louie primarily, but also his standup and Horace and Pete. This film fails dismally not just as art, but to meet the moral and philosophical standard of his best works, especially the TV series. The scenario is clear enough from the widely circulated trailer: super-successful TV writer/producer's teenage daughter becomes involved with ageing Magus, a respected director, who may or may not once have committed an act of paedophilic rape. There is a formal problem from the get-go: why is this profoundly troubling subject matter being whimsically shot and scored like a Hollywood golden age classic? The only halfway coherent or defensible answer seems to be that it's because it's not really a direct homage to the golden age, but to Woody Allen's own homages to it, a second-order homage, befitting the fact that the possibly paedophilic director is a fictionalised Allen (though temperamentally he is nothing like him). Even seen this way, it doesn't work. For subject matter this serious, you need to go to Allen precedents like Another Woman, Crimes and Misdemeanours or, most resonantly, Manhattan, which for all its monochrome high style, still has such a firm grounding in observed reality and emotional difficulty. I Love You Daddy feels more like later, trivial Allen, as if Louis, having done so well himself with observed reality and emotional difficulty, felt the best way to pay tribute to the older director was by emulating his loss of edge. All of this would be a problem no matter the subject matter, but given the sensitivity of what's under observation, it's well-nigh unforgivable. The subject of statutory rape is simply trivialised. That starts with the look and feel, but is followed through abundantly in the script. The purported victim of the alleged historic crime remains nameless and faceless ('that kid') and the protagonist's crass sidekick turns the situation into a dumb exercise in supposedly brave tactlessness, asking the director flat out whether he did it and thereby earning his respect and friendship. Meanwhile, other characters are wheeled on to further make light of this most extreme form of sexual assault and the only one who counsels caution is shown to be wrong. I don't and can't know the truth of the Allen case, except that I know a child was badly hurt and has carried that hurt through adulthood. My thoughts after seeing this are with her and others like her, as Louis' should have been and were not. I can barely understand how he thought this could have been OK, let alone how the excellent cast could have got involved. It's a mercy it didn't go on general release.

mrgolmos There's no way I would pay to see this film. So boring it put me to sleep. I did like seeing Ms Chloe in her bikinis. Healthy looking woman!

johnnyblazepw-276-271815 And if Louis CK makes you that uncomfortable, buckle up.. he's not going anywhere. Hes no Roman Polanski, Phil Spector or Bill Cosby....

Rob-O-Cop 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.