AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,3/10
4,8 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaWhen 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.
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 1 indicação no total
Albert Brooks
- Dick Welker
- (as A. Brooks)
Sincée J. Daniels
- Personal Trainer
- (as Sincée Daniels)
Lea Cohen Zuckerman
- Receptionist
- (as Lea Cohen)
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesAccording 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%.
- Citações
Leslie Goodwin: She's 17? I thought she was 16.
- ConexõesFeatured in Sven Uslings Bio: I Love You, Daddy (2021)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is I Love You, Daddy?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Я люблю тебя, папочка
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
- Tempo de duração
- 2 h 3 min(123 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente