SORRY/NOT SORRY | Film Threat Reviews
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 08. 2024
- Chris Gore and Alan Ng review “Sorry/Not Sorry,” now playing on VOD.
Have a drink with us for Hollywood On the Rocks, Wednesdays at 1PM PT, then catch us on our Friday Livecast at 9AM PT for film reviews, interviews and a chance to join the conversation about movies and all things pop culture!
And on Mondays at 1PM PT, join us ringside for Versus, where a bunch of passionate movie nerds have themselves a Royal Rumble!
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALL THE LINKS!
linktr.ee/film...
T-SHIRTS AND MERCH! Shop Film Threat t-shirts, mugs, merch and more:
shop.filmthrea...
SUBMIT YOUR INDIE FILM! We’ll review anything including your indie movie! Submit your film for review now:
filmthreat.com...
WIN AWARDS! All films reviewed on Film Threat become eligible for our indie movie awards show Award This! You can even attend the party!
linktr.ee/awar...
JOIN US AS A MEMBER! Join the Film Threat channel to get access to perks including giveaways, member chats and exclusive videos:
/ @filmthreat
LOCALS
filmthreat.loc...
Follow Alan Ng
linktr.ee/mypalal
Follow Chris Gore
linktr.ee/that...
3 LIVESTREAMS WEEKLY
We are live three days a week! Join us on Mondays for VERSUS, Wednesdays for HOLLYWOOD ON THE ROCKS and Fridays for movie reviews on the FILM THREAT LIVECAST -- reviews, TV coverage, entertainment news, filmmaker interviews, debates -- join the conversation!
Subscribe and watch Film Threat on Rumble:
rumble.com/c/F...
#SupportIndieFilm #FilmThreat
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/2vlR9zl
Film Threat on iTunes: apple.co/2LqWm1V
Film Threat on Soundcloud: bit.ly/2LqjSMk
Film Threat on Spotify: spoti.fi/2LBBjtM
ATTACK OF THE DOC!
Plus get Chris Gore’s Attack of the Doc! Ultimate Collector's Edition Blu-ray here:
shop.filmthrea...
Attack of the Doc! is streaming for free and on VOD, here are all the links:
linktr.ee/atta...
Produced by Chris Gore, Alan Ng, Laurie O. and Glenn Brown.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Get new movie reviews, interviews and news daily on our website.
filmthreat.com/
Comparing Louis CK with Weinstein is just rediculous. Documentaries these days are utter trash.
If Louis CK did something wrong, why hasn't anyone sued him? Why hasn't anyone come out with a story of him not asking for permission in advance? That's what I've heard happened: I've heard he always asked adults for consent before doing anything.
Louis CK has lost an incredible amount of money from this, how much more do these hit-piece-merchants claim he should suffer? Which punishment do they claim he should get...and in which court...or from which lynch-mob?
If he was like him he'd be directing a Star Wars show right now instead of losing probably the best comedy on TV at the 'Louie'
I was led to believe that the women willingly went back to his hotel rooms and he asked if it was ok.
As far as creepy stuff goes this is about as milk toast as it gets.
Good call on calling those documentaries propaganda pieces. I don’t know if Michael Moore started this trend of spinning narratives into this genre but he certainly popularized it.
I think you're exactly right. It did start with Michael Moore as I remember it. It was an infotainment type documentary, but with Moore's lefty background front and center.
I was trying to think of early (popular) propaganda docs, and Bowling for Columbine (2002) came out even before Super Size Me (2004)
It started with Ken "king of white guilt" Burns.
Actually it started when films became mainstream.
I mean look at military documentaries from the thirties and forties
It really is nothing new
Metoo gives us amber heards
It's a reflection of the transition of colleges/universities over the last several decades from institutions of learning how to find truth, to institutions of learning how to be an activist.
"Sorry Not Sorry" better applies to Morgan Spurlock, who lied in his documentary and got away with it. Hell, it applies to Al Gore and his documentary.
Louis never just "whips it out".
Even in the original story in the NYTimes, he asked every single time. So do we ask for consent or what?
Louis never put a woman in a position where they couldn't leave, and every story was also from a time when he was just some staff writer and a standup that no one even knew. They were all from before he was a celebrity.
He did nothing wrong in my opinion.
If Louis CK did something wrong, why hasn't anyone sued him? Why hasn't anyone come out with a story of him not asking for permission in advance? That's what I've heard happened: I've heard he always asked adults for consent before doing anything.
Louis CK has lost an incredible amount of money from this, how much more do these hit-piece-merchants claim he should suffer? Which punishment do they claim he should get...and in which court...or from which lynch-mob?
He lost everything. He had the best comedy on TV imo with 'Louie' at the time. He was right on the cusp of being a legit superstar.
Perfect comment. Lious CK is my favorite stand up comedian and he acknowledges he has some weird kinks, like millions of other people. But he didn't do anything illegal, he even asked for concent before he did what he's being vilified for. Where's the crime? Where's the victim even? If someone asks for your permission to perform an act in your presence and you say yes then you're not a victim, you're a willing participant.The women who came forward were opportunists who craved 15 minutes of sympathy during the metoo hysteria. Lious might be a perv but he's not a criminal and he actually doesn't have anything to be sorry about.
The dude asked for consent and still got crucified.
@@boromir2099
Louis CK bypassed the Hollywood system and their gatekeepers. He has his own website where he sells his specials for like $5. He self funds and produces his own movies. The Hollywood system despises people who are able to bypass their control mechanisms and have massively successful careers. I believe this is a major reason the establishment went after him.
All documentaries i have been watching made in the last 5 years have the same sjw air about them. Injecting their politics into them for literally no reason other than they can, i have completely given up on them. The only one that didn't was "wild cat" on amazon, really good btw
Louis CK bypassed the Hollywood system and their gatekeepers. He has his own website where he sells his specials for like $5. He self funds and produces his own movies. The Hollywood system despises people who are able to bypass their control mechanisms and have massively successful careers. I believe this is a major reason the establishment went after him.
I watched it. It's awful. All of the "comedians" that accused him are painfully unfunny and untalented. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the jealousy and spite they have for him. They can't stand that so all they want is to destroy him.
Last I knew he admitted to it but claimed he asked the women if he could engage in his degeneracy before whipping it out. And I'm not a big fan of his but as long as everyone agreed to the action and no one was hurt, it shouldn't even be a story. Gossip about him being a creep, sure, but it isn't like he committed an egregious crime.
On its face, being so one-sided, this movie seems like a total trashfire. They seriously only talk to ankle-biters and one of the lowest lifeforms known to man: hoity-toity NYT journalists? I'm sorry you had to endure it.
I'd think the movie would have quite a bit of merit if it included Louis himself in the discussion, but that's not what they wanted it to be. They wanted a hit piece. This is no different from the yearly GamerGate articles before the SBI Detected Steam Group controversy kicked off. The fact that Louis didn't stay gone was a black eye to them, and this appears to be them crying about it again in an attempt to renew calls for his exile.
I think you’re right. I’d be interested if they got both sides, but this sounds like an angry hit piece. As you said, supposedly he got permission from adults to behave in the manner he did. That makes him a very polite creep, and makes the women look like idiots. All they had to do is say no, and maybe even leave! Why didn’t they? Reminds me of a girl who told her bro to play drums with his athletic support cup, only to immediately get him busted for it with their mother. Classy move!
METOO was an over correction in response to Trump, and pushed Hollywood over the cliff. It's what has lead to the kind of movies and TV we have today. Sounds like this doc is trying to justify ruining a person just because he's weird and they don't understand him.
You are correct, it was a political movement meant to hurt Orange Man. It had nothing to do with protecting women or finding predators. Note how quickly they dropped it once Biden's intern had her own MeToo story.
Sorry dude, but that's blatantly wrong. The "Metoo" movement gained traction due to reports by journalists like Ronan Farrow about actual rapists in the business like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, and Jeffrey Epstein. It then became an overreaction when every bitch saw an opportunity to get their 15 minutes of fame. Your lord and saviour Trump is as much responsible for this is as he's responsible for the tides going out, even though he's part of it too.
This reminds me of Paul Reubens in the early 90's. At the time he justifiably lost his job as a children's entertainer, but if an audience still wanted to see him as an actor or comedian, then he should be allowed to rebuild/reinvent his career. No one should be sitting in a back room deciding if he's "paid enough".
I'm just surprised They're not over Louis some 8 years later. He's done some of my favorite Podcast episodes with Gillis, Bob Kelly ever since that. His 2020 Album won the Grammy's in 2022 and then his 2021 Album nominated again in 2023 only being topped by Chappelle in that year. He's admitted in one of his specials that he was wrong and cautioned people not to do what he did. And they come out with this Hit Piece? 8 years later? lol.
So what happened? “He Took It Out.” 😮
It.
Out.
It?
It!
Out?
Oouutttt!!!
Thats an good advise. Question everything. And form your own opinion.
If grown women are calling it trauma for a grown man pulling down his pants, then why is it acceptable for it to be done in front of children? Granted it's indecent exposure, but traumatic for a grown person? No. Traumatic for children? It certainly can be.
Louis has a kink. He never should have apologized about anything. No one was forced to do anything that they didn't want to do.
All depends on the ppl around you and what their humour/tolerance is. Some people are wild and Louis was around and hung out with some wild ppl (both male and female). Comedians can be pretty over to top to say the least. You get desensitized and acclimated to that stuff. A comedians job is to go right up to the edge and he went past it a bit without thinking of the consequences that's all.
He wasn't trying to coerce physical sex or sexual favours, he wasn't messing with kids, it was all consenting adults or across phone lines etc. He just likely never thought about what they may be thinking regarding the whole "power dynamic" (that's not really a thing if people have standards, these weren't poor disenfranchised women starving on the street he was tempting into prostitution lol).
Also if it was gonna affect future work relationships wouldn't you think he'd be like hey "why tf am i doin' this myself? Come gimme a hand here will ya?" I don't know the guy but to me it seems it was one of those miserable humiliation fetishes rich and famous ppl with imposter syndrome get when they don't know who their real friends are and feel they need to start testing to see who's just using them...
I doubt a negative reaction would have made him not hire them, probably the fair opposite tbh. He'd likely feel bad if they were disgusted and freaked out, probably would have enjoyed it if they flew off the handle and chastised him, and if they didn't care he'd probably be like "wow this b*tch can hang; respect." Guys with no self esteem, that type of fetishistic self loathing, they generally put women on pedastals. Creepy and weird yeah, but not physical sexual abusers. It's all psychosexual.
The issue however, is they don't think it's a big deal when it can cause certain people a lot of trauma (or they don't think about the bad actors that will use it against them to blackmail and coerce them cuz they see it as private little personal thing, a secret if you will, they assume the other party will be just as ashamed and humiliated as they are so they won't say anything).
The real people who are traumatized and get in their heads about it are people who were abused by others which they wouldn't even be thinking about cuz the way they see it is what they are doing is taboo but they figure they are colouring inside the lines because they aren't physically harming or actively trying to coerce or manipulate someone. They aren't thinking about the potential optics or other people's perception.
That type of dysfunction is a lot of small justifications that slowly add up over time is my point. It's becomes a social blind spot cuz most people are so nice and accommodating they won't be real with them and give them what for so the peer group slowly comes to tolerate it. It's all that old textbook "boiling the frog" analogy.
I get the exhibitionist fetish. Had a GF one time when i was younger and we fell right into it. Close calls are exciting, makes you feel alive doing something that you're not supposed to. We were young and attractive though, wouldn't have hurt anyone we figured if they caught a peek at a distance, plus they might be suspicious we were up to something but we were careful we'd never get caught caught!
...until complacency sets in and you almost get caught by some little kid with their family in tow and you're like "whoa where the F*CK did they come from?!" Yeah, THEN you start to f*ckin think real fast, "Oh sh*t, some angry dad coulda beat me to death over this" or "i coulda ended up on a list!", "how would i explain this to my parents?!" etc. For most people (myself included) one close call is enough to make it not so fun anymore. But the masochist types get addicted and push the envelope until they go to far. They have that panic i got and instead they say "wow, that was even more intense of a rush than what were doing before!" and they keep chasing the dragon to see how far they can get potential consequences be damned.
Like a gambling addict after a bad loss. They hate themselves, all of them consistently say they get way more of a rush when they are down and trying to win it all back than when they are way up. Drug and sex addicts have a bit of that too. They get a bigger lift going for that rock after fiending all morning to raise the funds and find it than they do from actually smoking it, it's all about the chase for the ones on the downward spiral. It's all linked to depression, anxiety and existential crisis.
The thing to remember is there's double standards and time and a places for everything. Nobody trying to cancel my young self and my GF experimenting, or young women with their tits out at mardi gras for examples, but say i went to a park in nothing but a trenchcoat solo at my current age of 40 with my full grizzled beard and disheveled hair and tried to rub one out on the sly in the vicinity of ppl to get my jollies the same way the two of us snuck around in our early 20s? I'd likely not have too great a go of things lol. Fact of the matter is if Louis C.K. wasn't a fat old balding outta shape grey ginger male, say he was Scarlett Johansson in her prime before she had any kids, yeah it'd be a total non-issue wouldn't it?
If anything i feel bad for him and i think his friends shoulda been straight with him and encouraged him to get get help to try and stop it. If he had a therapist worth his or her salt at that time they shoulda known and been on top of that sh*t. It was a disaster waiting to happen.
Afaic he didn't cross any of my lines that i know of, i'm about as conservative as it gets but if i were hanging out and he whipped his junk out and started stroking off i'd laugh my ass off. Awesome i'd say, highlight of the night. If he kept continuing beyond that i'd have just been like "stop that, it's getting weird and i'll hafta leave otherwise". If he didn't well i guess he doesn't want company and the party is over. Wouldn't be the first time someone blacked out, got weird and went on autopilot with a case of whiskeydick. At least he didn't sucker punch me in the face. I'd go cook some food so he didn't burn the place down trying to get a meal into him then go home and sleep like a baby. Maybe wonder what he was gonna say next time i saw him and think up some good jokes and sh*t but that's about it. Def have a little boundary talk later but other than that no harm no foul.
But hey i come from a time when during a party the first guy to pass out would end up with everyone's nutsacks draped over his face and a bunch of pictures taken for his GF/wife. You know what we did if anyone had a problem with it the next day? F*ck you, cry about it p*ssy. If you got a problem learn to handle your sh*t and don't be such a f*ggot next time. Hilarious. Never got old.
Actions = consequences. Keeps ppl vigilant. It's good for them. Builds character. I was active military, i've seen and done much worse than Louis C.K. When you're used to cancelling people for real you don't get twisted up over some c*nts fee-fees. Oh noes you saw a weiner! Wow, rough day lady... Could be worse. You could be dead. Perspective is everything.
There was an article in The Atlantic some ways back whose author felt that Louie C.K.'s apology was insufficient and was clearly angry and resentful towards him, and it just made me want to ask: "What did Louie C.K. do to _you_ , personally, such that he should be obligated to issue an apology that you can then decline for your own capricious reasons?" I can feel that what C.K. might have done is kind of gross, and not think that it warrants him being deprived of the ability to make a living doing something he's good at and that an audience wants to see him do; if anything, the tone of his recent material seems like it ought to serve as a warning that there's a limit to how much self-flagellation people are willing to do trying to please people who will never forgive them anyway.
I’ve seen this and it’s a grievance and resentment showcase.
I come here for the honesty and you guys never fail to deliver!
Whipping it out is why we're not getting Captain Jack Harkness back in Doctor Fruitloop.
The media has a hard on for LCK that they insist on relieving as publicly as possible.
From what I gathered Louis CK has a kink and is an exhibitionist but he never exposed himself without asking the others. If all parties agreed you can not claim it was any form of assault. If he did his actions without consent it would have been something completely different. Of course there was a power dynamic at play but it feels in many ways overblown as well. And you may not having taken his kink serious but there seems to be an element of kink shaming here as well, which `the left` is opposed too normally. It does remind me of how someone said years ago that exhibitionism by women is far more accepted than it is by men.
The most interesting thing however is that the documentary is produced by The New York Times who wrote the article about it years ago. It is like they try to either keep the story relevant or cash in on it a second time which feels cynical.
This all happened in 2017. Hes had 3 comedy specials, a movie and won a Grammy since then. This documentary seems late to the game.
and Armie Hammer was the real 50 shades but all the sudden it’s not sexy anymore…
I have an issue with the use of the word documentary. What it should actually be referred to is propaganda. If we're all being constantly berated about the correct use of pronouns, then we should start seriously labelling things with their correct, proper and concrete nouns too.
This sounds like the HBO 'Leaving Neverland' documentary, where its a one sided hit piece that didn't want you asking any questions.
I think the fact that Louis CK was able to have successful comedy gigs after the scandal proves most people don't care. It should always be up to the actual fans and paying customers to decide whether to support someone or not. Outside forces shouldn't be removing these people from gigs and not allowing us a choice.
If you are forbidden to ask questions, then you dealing with a religion.
Or the safe and effective lol
A cult, only Islam really blocks questions and criticism out of the religions.
@@HereAndThere-o4j LoL, in Islam you are encouraged to ask questions. Criticism would depend on the way you do it. But you know which religion has historically discouraged its followers from questioning it? Christianity.
Not all religions forbid you from asking questions. Maybe Christianity does, not all religion.
@@pseudonym9215That is a blantant lie.
You could never make CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS or CRUMB now without condemning the people being profiled.
I share the same sentiments as Chris on this matter. I’ve been able to interview quite a few documentarians over the years, and most of them were hindered by their backers to take a myopic viewpoint. A vast amount of modenday documentaries are either biased or controlled. A lot, but not all. Must check out Chris’s doc, by the way
You guys hit two solid nails on the head: People need to be going to counseling for this, not appearing in biased documentaries, and that documentaries are no longer biased. I may watch it for the very reason you said, Alan: it showcases the culture wars and is not a legitimate documentary.
CK asked and was given permission to wak off. But those women felt coerced after thinking about it for a decade or so. So Me Too...
Good to see some tryly open discussions being had. Keep it up!
Great review ! Question everything !!
The doc was interesting for many reasons. Here's some of my thoughts and questions
1. it's important to really understand what these women are like, how they really felt and to what extent they were trapped by NYT into feeling like victims for a minor incident like a phonecall mstrbtion. Of course, the comedic duo that actually experienced Louis' stupidity had the most serious trauma, but they didn't even show up in the doc.
2. Did Meg Koester actually meet Louis CK ever?
3. Aida Rodriguez was definitely racist for saying that white men get away with these things. What a dangerous generalization
4. The Comedy Cellar owner stood his ground, but Michael Ian Black and Michael Schur were very scared to do so as well. Andy Kindler was pathetic and full of jealousy
5. The original NYT piece said that five women were assaulted by LCK. He could easily sue them for that. First, it's not 5, it's 3, the comedic duo and the anonymous lady at the Chris Rock show. Second, one of them declined. Third, the phonecall is a way minor incident, as LCK and that lady sorted it out on Facebook messenger in 2009.
6. Does anyone realize that if Louis CK hadn't become insanely famous in the early and mid 2010s, no one would have cared enough to turn this into a story? The doc makes it seem that LCK was very powerful, but this is nonsense. LCK had a very mediocre if not failing career until 2006 when he decided to turn around his career by releasing a new special almost every year.
To sum up, it was definitely fair that Louis CK received some kind of cancelation for at least a year. But anything beyond that is insane. The documentary makes it seem that his career is back when in fact he is STILL canceled. He hasn't been on TV for 7 years, he'll probably never have a deal with Netflix, HBO or FX and he has to rely on his website for everything he does.
That's not what happened at all. He tells them he is going to relive stress, and they didn't leave the room.
This was a disappointing doc. I went into it thinking we were going to see Louis interviewed. But he doesn't even appear in it outside of archival footage. And the doc accomplishes nothing, giving no info that wasn't already out there. It has no resolution. It's basically a movie-length rehash of people who don't like him.
OMFG that POSTER says all you need to know about this "documentary."
I'm with you Chris. I am starting to be very wary and suspicious of any new "documentary" … i want to know who made it and how well researched it was. Otherwise, hard pass.
Adolph Satan 😂
I got into several arguments in film school about documentaries. I think they should be objective - like how journalism is supposed to be - and they're not. At all. Good call, Chris.
Consequently, I feel the best documentary I've ever watched was The Vietnam War by Burns and Novick.
All I have to read is "from the New York Times" to know this film can be totally disregarded!
Could we just even imagine Sam Kinnison doing comedy in this modern age ???
Who cares he was shamed and admitted to it and asked if he could before doing it. Everybody has a second chance or the right to it. I have made more mistakes than right choices in my life, but i wouldn't have learned the right way if i didn't make them.
The only modern documentary I like is 'American Vandal'
Documentaries (with something to think about later when less biased/skewed) were once my favourite genre but have now become a sad joke most of the time......Billy & Molly: An Otter Love Story was pretty good though as was the recent Henson doc (but it would be harder to insert ideology/politics in them being simple and sweet-natured documentaries).
Literally asking for consent before doing anything is what adults were told to do. Right? Women are strong and independent and can easily just say no.
Would like see a list of film threat's favourite and most balanced docos.
Maybe... in the same way that newspapers have articles and opinion sections, there are documentaries that have those two types as well. The problem is, as with newspapers, the articles that are loaded with opinion but pretending to be journalism. It's like how "Winged Migration" gets classified as a documentary but it's really a film with "actors" (trained birds) and clear opinions expressed through staged scenes, though filled with well-shot B-roll of actual nature shots.
Louie continues to be an excellent stand-up. I liked I Love You Daddy. I loved his series. Also the HBO sit-com. I don't like Tig Notaro going after him to push this story. I hope for Louie\s ongoing success. Thank God for his website savvy getting his work out there.
They flat out deny he had a fetish it’s crazy
Alan Wang.. i knew it 😂😂
Its amazing to me how after so many years, the entire true story is out there, and people just want to believe what they want.. Alan, shame on you
Docs seem like fiction nowadays
Documents today, are one sided. You don’t get to hear the otherside.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t he ask these women before doing it? If he did, isn’t that just a sexual encounter between consenting adults.
As long as he is a liberal, he can still get work. Now if he went all in on supporting Orange Man, that would be a line too far.
Louis went woke to hide from the allegations right before, and it has been since. That's why he was allow her to come back. Imagine if he said something nice about Trump
Of course, Louis CK is doing great. You won't see him on TV anymore, but he still sells out shows. For being canceled, he's making a lot of money.
If Alex J was ordered go pay a billion in damages, then surely Louis CK should be awarded twice that from the people behind this purposeful, coordinated slander.
I’m shocked Dave Becky still works today because he sounded like the worst in this story
"He took it out."
"He took what out?"
"It."
Seinfeld foretold of Louis CK's arrival. 😑
I'd argue that Ellen was worse than LCK, a LOT worse.
She doesn’t ask for consent before degrading people, it’s like a night and day difference.
Would it be easier to make a new category called agenda theory? Then you can make the difference in topics.
Chris.. you need to eat, lols. Just a bit worried..
The comeback....so many jokes lol
2:59 no job should ever make you dread going in or stress you to wonder will you have a job the next day if you're doing your job to the best of your ability. And did not like that you can do what they are looking for
That would be nice but those are completely unrealistic standards. Just the range of how ppl react & feel negates it. You are right in one respect- they should try to find jobs where they don't feel that way.
I become less and less of a fan of Alan as days go by and his shit takes roll out. Louis CK had consent every time, no one was coerced, and most of them were literally joining him in HIS HOTEL ROOM for a “night cap” at 1-3 am.
It’s absurd thinking he should be canceled at all even if it was your daughter. You know why? Your daughter joined him for a night cap in his hotel room between 1 and 3 am and she consented to his actions.
-edit-
And to be fair to Alan on this one he did state that he doesn’t believe Louis should have been canceled over this. His early comments in the video are just a bit contradictory to that.
people that think mens locker room talk is bad has never heard their mum and friends at an ann summers party talk......women are worst and go into every little detail.....i have never heard disgusting talk like that from my male mates yes we have talked and joked about women but that is it.....women are different they will talk about everything.
The only thing I want to know is, does this documentary finally answer the question that Louis C.K. does, in fact, have crunchy bush hairs?
That's right! I'm back bitches! Ya thought I was gone, but I ain't! An I ain't never gonna not be muthafckas! I'll come back again and again and again and agaaaaaain!
CRUNCHY BUSH GANG UNTIL THE END OF ETERNITY!!!
People need to learn to distinguish between gross and offensive behavior versus harmful behavior. Teaching people to overreact to some guy "whipping it out" is teaching people to feel harm when they could choose to feel amused at human folly, to learn about human nature, to deal constructively with people who need correction. No one is helped or improved by this documentary. What a waste of effort.
This was made by people who spent the last 8 years saying “Cancel culture isn’t real!” and this whole doc is them complaining why cancel culture isn’t doing its thing
Don't know anything about the person the documentary is about, but it seems unless I already know and am in agreeance with the narrative it tells, there is no point in watching it. It seems more like a typical biased hit-piece with very narrow exploration and investigation.
Louis C.K. is 👑
Brilliant!!
This isn't a documentary. It's a biased commentary put on film. Exactly as Chris states -- they had their final opinion on paper BEFORE the cameras began to record.
What's really frustrating about the Louis CK situation is..... a movement like METOO is super important. I support the movement and genuinely DO want scummy individuals to be called-out and called to justice. BUT.... a situation like Louis'? By aligning him with the likes of Weinstien, all they are doing is HARM to the movement!! Don't be disingenuous and lump in something you dislike (the notion that Louis' took his kink too far) with something that's actually evil (Weinstien actually [g]raping/molesting women) - that just calls the entire movement into question.
This hit-piece of a non-documentary looks sleazy, MORE sleazy than the allegations they make against Louis C.K.
Looks good
i
Lemme guess. The female's in this doc haven't had much in the last 6 years?
going thru all your vids to see if the new twister is woke.
all I see in the library is a crap tonne of acolyte vids. come on guys. I'm not interest in acolyte. like not at all!
Buuh huuu.. cancel culture can go stick it!
Big fan of Loui C.K - then he opened his mouth on Joe Rogan and let us know he is a completely deranged lunatic.
True dat. But hey, presidents pod with Shane was great.
I think trust is easy to get, easy to lose, and nearly impossible to get back once you had it and lost it... so it doesn't always matter if someone deserves better or not.
I just want you to know that I'm unsubscribing, not because of this video. But because of Censorship of my comment! Have a nice life!
We didn’t censor your comment. Could be a CZcams thing
@@FilmThreat There was nothing in my post that youtube should've censored! All I said was the only difference between CK and Weinstein is the "Degree of the sexual assault" and "that those who commit such crimes belong under the prison" A view held by most people in or out of prison!
I did not advocate violence of any kind, I did not threaten anyone or advocate self harm. There was nothing "Ist" or promotion of "Ists" in any way!
So if open discourse, isn't allowed why bother being here??? Weather it's you or CZcams, doesn't really matter.
@@FilmThreat Just so you know my first response to you is being withheld for some unknown reason!
oh look, it just showed up. I wonder why it was being withheld by CZcams?
Chris said he doesnt like properganda pieces from one side , without reply from the other.
Wasnt Chris a good friend of Morgan Spurlock?
Who cares, he’s not that funny and comes off as a weirdo. Next
Weinstein, Epstein, Louie CK...dont you dare commect that last thread ...
Oh come off it you muppet
they used to call them flashers
nobody asked to see his genitals
so I don't agree the women working with him should just put up with it
I do not agree with it
but enough of the trials by media!
let the LAW deal with it!
Hey then dont work for him, and you are correct let the law deal with it.
According to what I read he literally did ask each time. Maybe there were some blurred lines where people thought he was joking because he is a comedian, but it's hard to judge if anything happened that was actually out of line when he explicitly asked for consent.
Wow you guys really have turn political in the past week sad to see man noticed this about the majority of online critics of late.
LCK isn’t funny and never has been.
He's white so it's ok.
He’s Mexican. And you’re…well, you know what you are