I Love You, Daddy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.