This is a technically-competent documentary but its problem is thematic, in that it doesn't know what it's trying to achieve.
First of all, Louis CK is someone who did appalling, inexcusable things but he's not Harvey Weinstein. Invoking such an iconic monster as Weinstein detracts from CK's lesser, albeit vile, behaviour. But that's not the main flaw in this film. The main flaw is that it doesn't know what question it's asking.
If it's asking why Louis CK still has a great career, we already know the answer - because he's a great comedian. That raises the question; should someone who did something reprehensible be allowed to make a living? And if so, should they only be allowed to make a living in certain professions? (And if so, why? Etc etc)
If it's asking whether or not Louis CK is genuinely sorry, the only valid answer is: 'We don't know.' We can't possibly know anyone's genuine emotions - as opposed to what they choose to tell us - unless we've known that person very well and for long enough that we can trust them to be honest with us. We certainly can't know the private thoughts of a person whom most of us have never even met.
Rightly or wrongly, Louis CK's not required to be sorry; he's only required to abide by the law and not repeat his past behaviour. He could of course make it obvious that he's really sorry, but that might be performative, so would it mean anything, anyway?
A much more insightful question would have been; Can you separate the art from the artist? That's up to the individual - there's no generic response but it's a fascinating question that could have driven a much more interesting film.
Personally I love Louis CK's comedy - he's one my favourites. Do I love the man himself? Definitely not - I don't even know him and I have zero desire to meet him. Having met a few of my creative heroes, I have no problem separating art from artist. Whether anyone else feels the same is entirely up to them. That's the subjective nature of any art and how individuals respond to it.
