Horace and Pete

:

Season 1
User Score
8.4

Universal acclaim- based on 150 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 130 out of 150
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 150
  3. Negative: 13 out of 150
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. istanbul
    Feb 4, 2016
    4
    Horace and Pete reminded me of the artisanal chocolate bars of the Mast Brothers that have been on the news recently. Good packaging, unparalleled hubris - yet poor product. I would not wish to say that Louis CK is cashing in on his success by using the murky definition of "good, smart tv" but horace and pete kind of is just that. A hastily done production with nothing substantial orHorace and Pete reminded me of the artisanal chocolate bars of the Mast Brothers that have been on the news recently. Good packaging, unparalleled hubris - yet poor product. I would not wish to say that Louis CK is cashing in on his success by using the murky definition of "good, smart tv" but horace and pete kind of is just that. A hastily done production with nothing substantial or unique to offer. If this was an off-broadway show, critics would simply scribble about how sorry they feel for Falco, Buscemi and Alda - three solid performances - trying hard to make something out of this poor script and directing - yet somehow when this is on tv, the weak material becomes something of a revelation? Not buying it. At all.… Expand
  2. metabad
    Apr 23, 2016
    5
    When the last episode was over I thought: "You really need a comedian to write a tragedy like this."
    I think it's hard to give this show a mediocre rating, because either you like it or you want to forget about it.
    I'll give that mediocre rating anyway, because it's an average of things I liked and those I didn't like. The show was very earnest and real. We have popular    When the last episode was over I thought: "You really need a comedian to write a tragedy like this."
    I think it's hard to give this show a mediocre rating, because either you like it or you want to forget about it.
    I'll give that mediocre rating anyway, because it's an average of things I liked and those I didn't like.

    The show was very earnest and real. We have popular actors/actresses that did their jobs very well.
    Many of the stories the people told, where very touching.
    So, there was really something there, that I liked a lot.
    You needed a little patience, but it was mostly worth it.

    But what I ask myself and what leads to only a 5-rating is the why.
    Why all this tragedy, this suffering and sadness, what did it lead to?
    What do I get out of it? Nothing.
    After witnessing a tragedy like this, I need to take something with me.
    Sadness and tragedy alone are just sad and tragic.
    A sad and tragic story has to have more than that. Otherwise it'll make you sad and nothing more.
    I don't need a happy ending. But I need more than a "That's it. It's over.".
    All of them dead or gone. These are sad things you want to leave behind and if there isn't something more,
    there nothing you want to keep and take home with you.

    I appreciate Louis C.K.'s work, but it was too much of a downer for me with no apparent benefits.    … Expand
  3. RichardGonci
    Jun 26, 2017
    6
    I really wanted to be drawn into this work. Now, I know it was not constructed to be a comedic piece, and frankly, I'm fine with that. More than fine. But, that said, the timings are like comedic timings. I applaud the risk-taking. I also applaud the story premise, but as a guy who worked on "Glengarry Glen Ross," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf," "Fortune in Men's Eyes," and the like forI really wanted to be drawn into this work. Now, I know it was not constructed to be a comedic piece, and frankly, I'm fine with that. More than fine. But, that said, the timings are like comedic timings. I applaud the risk-taking. I also applaud the story premise, but as a guy who worked on "Glengarry Glen Ross," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf," "Fortune in Men's Eyes," and the like for decades, when an essentially dramatic work is ostensibly written and shot for the small screen it should not ignore its stage antecedents. Thanks to a most remarkable cast, the unsure writing is often saved.… Expand

Awards & Rankings

47
#47 Best TV Season of 2016
41
#41 Most Discussed TV Season of 2016

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 12 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 12
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 12
  3. Negative: 0 out of 12
  1. The Atlantic
    Reviewed by: David Sims
    Mar 8, 2016
    80
    If the show has flaws--it’s certainly slow-moving, and the intentional abrasiveness of its characters can sometimes feel cartoonish--they deserve to be forgiven just because of the singularity of vision on display.
    Read full review
  2. IndieWire
    Reviewed by: Liz Shannon Miller
    Feb 26, 2016
    67
    Horace and Pete is quiet and intimate when it's at its best, but in so many ways it feels like indulgence. And that's fine. If you're operating at Louis C.K.'s level, I guess you get a few of those.
    Read full review
  3. Boston Globe
    Reviewed by: Matthew Gilbert
    Feb 16, 2016
    70
    The acting is superb, especially as the tensions become more overt in the second half.... He’d probably kill with the same material [on poltics and current events] in a stand-up show, but in a script about abuse, alcoholism, denial, and family estrangement, it doesn’t quite work. The strength of Horace and Pete is in the age-old themes festering at its heart.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »