IMDb RATING
6.3/10
4.8K
YOUR RATING
When a successful television writer's daughter becomes the interest of an aging filmmaker with an appalling past, he becomes worried about how to handle the situation.When a successful television writer's daughter becomes the interest of an aging filmmaker with an appalling past, he becomes worried about how to handle the situation.When a successful television writer's daughter becomes the interest of an aging filmmaker with an appalling past, he becomes worried about how to handle the situation.
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination total
Albert Brooks
- Dick Welker
- (as A. Brooks)
Sincée J. Daniels
- Personal Trainer
- (as Sincée Daniels)
Lea Cohen Zuckerman
- Receptionist
- (as Lea Cohen)
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Did you know
- TriviaAccording to Metacritic, at one point the film had a high 70%. After sexual misconduct allegations against Louis C.K. came out, the film's score decreased to 56%.
- Quotes
Leslie Goodwin: She's 17? I thought she was 16.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Sven Uslings Bio: I Love You, Daddy (2021)
- How long is I Love You, Daddy?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 2h 3m(123 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content