Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Love Child (2024) Movie Review & Ending Explained: Can Love and Sacrifice Keep Ayla and Paolo’s Family Together?

Published

on

Love Child (2024) Movie Review & Ending Explained: Can Love and Sacrifice Keep Ayla and Paolo’s Family Together?

Rom Coms, the ones that match the endearing and intelligent with equal fluency, have a scintillating flavor. The book of tricks to make a romcom sing and soar may have admittedly gone jaded and dog-eared. The crises of couples, dilemmas, and anxieties they have to battle have undergone dramatic changes in a fast-evolving world. Expectations vary with the decades, even as gendered rules haven’t dented much.

The urge to steal a leaf or two from every standard template Hollywood romcom is immanent in any new derivation. It becomes a constant tussle, hence, for a new film in similar spaces to eke out freshness and smarts. Jonathan Jurilla’s directorial “Love Child” (2024) has little to add or say anything genuinely sparkling. It’s a weary distillation of parental exhaustion and re-alignment, too silly to pass off what it views as clever self-reflexive remarks.

There are basic cardinal rules a romcom must ensure is upheld. Conflicts should ideally resonate across a demographic; humor needs to exist in spades. A helping of self-awareness goes a long way in establishing a winking playfulness. The best rom-coms sail through these assumptions with lightness and spryness.

Love Child (2024) Plot Summary & Movie Synopsis:

Ayla and Paolo’s Journey of Love, Sacrifice, and Resilience

Ayla (Jane Oineza) and Paolo (RK Bagatsing) are young parents. Incidentally, the actors themselves are a couple in real life, who call the film a “free trial” to parenthood. Ayla and Paolo have been exultant about becoming parents but what awaits them is a whole lot of instability, fraught periods of testing faith in each other to weather the hardships of raising their child, Kali (John Tyrron Ramos) who is diagnosed with autism. It’s this diagnosis that opens the film and sends their lives into a tailspin. The two have fought with their families on several counts to realize their togetherness. Dreams have also been put on hold. Paolo is a filmmaker who desires to make it big but naturally meets resistance from his father, from whom he has cut loose.

Advertisement

They arrive in the Philippines to put up at the house that Ayla’s aunt has offered. They don’t have to worry about rent, an exponential anxiety hence taken care of. The first thing they get done is to enroll Kali at a school for children with support needs. They hope he can be addressed with due attention and be given proper time, nourished in a safe, loving, and understanding community.

How Far Will Ayla and Paolo Go to Secure a Future for Their Son?

Of course, things don’t go as smoothly. The money to raise the child is immense, formidable, and persistent. It’s no small task. To exacerbate matters, the couple has no savings to lean on. Ayla has just a small income from a virtual assistant job and Paolo has barely any gigs to draw a livelihood from in the Philippines.

At home back in Australia, opportunities were, at least, higher. Sources of supporting themselves stand a chance. The couple start a coffee cart as an added source of income. Even that isn’t enough. Customers are few. To run the cart is its own demanding affair that strains their purses more than they expected it to.

One night, Kali falls terribly sick. His parents rush him to the hospital, where medical expenses surge. Where will the couple find the money to foot the bill? They are at wit’s end. Pao assures Ayla not to worry. He’ll dredge out a way. However, when he is away scavenging for a source, Ayla already turns to her mother who lends her the needed money. He is angry with her because Ayla’s mother has been refusing to recognize Kali as her grandson. She tells him, if they waited longer, they’d be staring at an added day of hospital expenses.

Love Child (2024) Movie Ending Explained:

Do Ayla and Paolo find a way of raising their child?

Love Child (2024) Movie
A still from “Love Child” (2024)

Ayla and Paolo are compelled to employ specialized teachers and attendants for Kali. The cost of living becomes exceedingly high. How can they afford it? Ultimately, they edge toward the pained but necessary realization that they have to live apart at least for a while. If that’s the only way they can build a decent future for Kali, they can’t ignore it. What’s significant and decisive is both Ayla and Paolo are wholly committed to being there for Kali, no matter what it takes, as well as underscoring the need to go out and chase their individual aspirations.

Yes, she must pursue her dream of being a lawyer. The climax is a wistful one, with Paolo leaving for Australia where he would brush aside his bruised ego and accept his father’s job offer. He takes the marks of his wife and child, remnants of them he’d carry with him as he moves into an uncertain, yet hope-tinged future in Australia. They part ways with a promise of return. They know he’ll be back when the time is right and resources have accrued enough to carve for them a comfortable life together.

Advertisement

Love Child (2024) Movie Review:

“Love Child” lacks a fundamental, driving vitality and energy. It is only inconsistently curious and sporadic in its plunges into human indecision and the fear of failure. What is that projection we induce when we feel we are turning into reflections of our parents, a reality most horrific and to skirt clear? To encounter such a realization is depressing and upsetting.

The central pair of the film have to negotiate and move past reservations and a bundle of fears popping up. They are opposed to seeking the help of their parents, who have never sided with them in big decisions, but they also understand the need for a bigger family their child ought to have. Having just his parents wouldn’t suffice for Kali to rely on. For his sake, the parents have to look past their grudges and learn to forgive and let go of ill will.

Read More: 15 Best Netflix Original Horror Movies

It’s a question of need and learning to trust again those who have failed us, giving them another chance without being bogged down by ego and justified anger and disappointment. But the film never pads this vital realization of the parents well to land its ultimate point. “Love Child” dwells lightly on vast conflicts as these, papering them over with a convenient switch.

This is why the hardship and everyday strife don’t hit as deeply as they ought to. “Love Child” leaves you pining for a more textured understanding of the complex bonds of care between the couple and their child, who is bereft of any dimension other than his support needs. The film takes a blinkered, dull view and yet bungs in a slapdash discovery of the importance of a larger family.

Love Child (2024) Movie Trailer:

Love Child (2024) Movie Links: IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Wikipedia, Letterboxd
The Cast of Love Child (2024) Movie: RK Bagatsing, Jane Oineza, John Tyrron Ramos, Milton Dionzon, Mai-Mai Montelibano, Jaden Biel Fernandez, Chart Motus, Mary Jane Quilisadio, Mandy Alonso, Tey Sevilleno
Love Child (2024) Movie Runtime: 1h 40m, Genre: Drama
Where to watch Love Child

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Is ‘Josie and the Pussycats’ (2001) Really Even A Rock N Roll Movie? (FILM REVIEW) – Glide Magazine

Published

on

Is ‘Josie and the Pussycats’ (2001) Really Even A Rock N Roll Movie? (FILM REVIEW) – Glide Magazine

The satirical romp Josie and the Pussycats (2001) is a fun movie. But is it a great rock ‘n’ roll movie?
Eh, not so fast on that second one. Welcome back to Glide’s quest for what makes a good rock ‘n’ roll movie. Last month, we looked at Almost Famous, a great launching pad because it gets so much right. And every first Friday, we’ll take another look at a rock ‘n’ movie and ask what it means in the larger pantheon. This month, the Glide’s screening room brings you Josie and the Pussycahttps://glidemagazine.com/322100/almost-perfect-why-almost-famous-sets-the-gold-standard-for-rock-movies/ts. The film is a live-action take on the classic comic-and-cartoon property of a sugary, all-girl rock trio that exists in the world of Riverdale, a.k.a. fictional home of the iconic Archie Andrews.

But this Josie has next to nothing to do with Riverdale and is instead a satire of consumerism and ’00s boy bands. A worthy target, and a topic that has stayed worthy in the quarter-century since Josie dropped. The film was not a hit, but it has become something of a cult classic (like many movies featured in this series).

The plot is fairly simple. Wyatt Frame, an evil corporate type, is making piles of money off boy band Du Jour. They start to wise up to his evil scheme and have to be… taken care of. Frame needs a new group to front his plot, which revolves around mind control to push consumer culture. Enter Josie and the Pussycats, who are about to have a whirlwind ride to the top. And along the way, foil a plot with tentacles so far-reaching they have ensnared… Carson Daly?

Josie is a fun, clever movie, but it doesn’t have a whole lot to say about real rock ‘n’ roll, unless you want to simply accept a perspective that it’s just another cynical consumer-driven product. Even that is an argument that can be made, as long as you’re willing to ignore underground and indie scenes and passionate artists making amazing music.

And it is true that this is a theme of Josie. The band triumphs at the end via their authentic music. But it somehow doesn’t feel authentic, which makes it something of a hollow victory. Let’s consider the criteria already established for a good rock ‘n’ roll movie, and how Josie delivers on that front. The first is in the characters department. The film dodges the previously established Buckethead Paradox, which states that “The real-life rock stars are so much larger than life that you can’t make up credible fictional versions. There is no way someone like Buckethead would come out of a writer’s room and make it to a screen.”

Advertisement

For better or worse, Josie dodges the Paradox by essentially embracing it. The characters themselves are cartoons, and there’s no effort at realism. Given that intent is a huge part of art, it seems unfair to call these characters “cartoons” as a criticism, and it should probably be a compliment. At the same time, they aren’t particularly memorable, which is not a great quality.

And—as a bonus—Tara Reid is perfectly cast as drummer Melody Valentine. Josie was a few years after her turn in Around the Fire (1998), an unintentionally hilarious classic that plays like a jam band afterschool special from the producers of Reefer Madness (look for this amazing film in an upcoming piece).
The acting in general is good, with Rachel Leigh Cook as Josie McCoy and Rosario Dawson as bassist Valerie Brown rounding out the band. And Alan Cumming almost steals the show as sleazy corporate weasel Wyatt Frame.

The character of Wyatt is the film’s funniest riff on a rock ‘n’ roll archetype: the sleazy, corporate manager accompanied by assorted crooked accountants. From Colonel Tom Parker to Albert Grossman to The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle. It’s all about the benjamins. Which is where the music comes in. If the music is good, that’s what makes it worth it. And Josie’s music has aged particularly well. It’s well-recorded, produced and executed. The songs are particularly catchy. The vocals are by Kay Hanley of Letters to Cleo. Much of the soundtrack sounds like a lost album from The Muffs, and one wonders why Kim Shattuck wasn’t involved.

There’s an argument that power pop was never supposed to be dangerous, and that the Muffs aren’t dangerous either. Fair on the surface, but they played real punk clubs and came from a real scene. There’s not even a hint of that in Josie. So an argument that they play pop punk (which they kinda do) is really lacking the punk part.
And it was produced by Babyface, of all people. While that doesn’t seem like it should lead to great rock ‘n’ roll, sometimes preconceptions are wrong.

That said, this is a very commercial product and sound—as catchy as it is—so maybe it’s not a misconception. Maybe the right question to ask is whether it’s all too perfect? And that’s what gives this ostensibly rock ‘n’ film a smoothed-down edge? After all, the basic ingredients are there. But part of what makes good rock good is that it feels actually dangerous. Maybe there are some actual subversive messages, or a genuine counterculture scene. And Josie simply isn’t that film. The soundtrack is fondly remembered enough that Hanley appeared live and performed the songs at a screening in 2017. That appearance also included the film’s stars Cook, Dawson and Reid.

Advertisement

It’s worth noting that while Cook and company obviously lip sync to the songs in the film, their performances are credible. They went through instrument boot camp, so they pull off the parts.

In the end, the film is primarily a satire of consumer culture. And even more strangely, is loaded with actual product placement. Clearly, the joke was intended to “hit harder” with real products, but having Target in the film constantly makes it feel like more of what it is parodying than a parody. Where’s the joke if the viewer actually pushes to shop at Target while watching the film? And if the filmmakers actually took money (which they almost certainly did)?

And perhaps that is the lesson for this month: a great rock ‘n’ roll movie needs to have something to say about the larger meaning or culture of the music. And while Josie may have a lot to say about culture in general, and it may say it in a fun and likeable way, it’s just not very rock ‘n’ roll. There’s no grit. Now, does it have some things to say about being in a band? Yes, though they are arguably true of most collaborations.

If someone in a hundred years wanted to understand early 21st century rock, Josie and the Pussycats is a bad choice. It doesn’t show the sweat of a performance or the smell of beer. But it’s a great choice for anyone looking for a light-hearted, fun watch with a great soundtrack. We could all use some sugar in our lives these days.
Join us again next month, when we’ll look at one of the inspirations for Josie, A Hard Day’s Night, the legendary first film from The Beatles

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

Published

on

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

After six TV series from 2013 to 2022, which caused a worrying surge in flat cap-wearing among well-to-do men in country pubs, Peaky Blinders is now getting a hefty standalone feature film, a muscular picture swamped in mud and blood. This is the movie version of Steven Knight’s global small-screen hit, based on the real-life gangs that swaggered through Birmingham from Victorian times until well into the 20th century. Cillian Murphy returns with his uniquely unsettling, almost sightless stare as Tommy Shelby, family chieftain of a Romani-traveller gang, a man who has converted his trauma in the trenches of the first world war into a ruthless determination to survive and rule.

As we join the story some years after the curtain last came down, it is 1940, Britain’s darkest hour and Tommy is the crime-lion in winter. He now lives in a huge, remote mansion, far from the Birmingham crime scene he did so much to create, alone except for his henchman Johnny Dogs, played by Packy Lee. Evidently wearied and sickened by it all, Tommy is haunted by his ghosts and demons: memories of his late brother, Arthur, and dead daughter, Ruby, and working on what will be his definitive autobiography. (Sadly, we don’t get any scenes of Tommy having lunch with a drawling London publisher or agent.)

But a charismatic and beautiful woman, played by Rebecca Ferguson, brings Tommy news of what we already know: his malign idiot son Erasmus Shelby, played by Barry Keoghan, is now running the Peaky Blinders, a new gen-Z-style group of flatcappers raiding government armouries for guns that should really belong to the military. And if that wasn’t disloyal and unpatriotic enough, Erasmus has accepted a secret offer from a sinister Nazi fifth-columnist called Beckett, played by Tim Roth, to help distribute counterfeit currency which will destroy the economy and make Blighty easier to invade. Doesn’t Erasmus know what Adolf Hitler is going to do to his own Romani people? (To be fair to Erasmus, a lot of the poshest and most well-connected people in the land didn’t either.)

Clearly, Tommy is going to have to come down there and sort this mess out. And we get a very ripe scene in which soft-spoken Tommy turns up in the pub full of raucous idiots who cheek him. “Who the faaaaaack is ‘Tommy Shelby’?” sneers one lairy squaddie, who gets horribly schooled on that very subject.

Advertisement

In this movie, Tommy Shelby is against the Nazis, and he can’t get to be more of a good guy than that. (Tommy has evidently put behind him memories of Winston Churchill from the first two series, when Churchill was dead set on clamping down on the Peaky Blinders.) The war and the Nazis are a big theme for a big-screen treatment and screenwriter Knight and director Tom Harper put it across with some gusto as a kind of homefront war film, helped by their effortlessly watchable lead. Maybe you have to be fully invested in the TV show to really like it, although this canonisation of Tommy is a sentimental treatment of what we actually know of crime gangs in the second world war. Nevertheless, it is a resoundingly confident drama.

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man is in out on 6 March in the UK and US, and on Netflix from 20 March.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Here comes “THE BRIDE!”, audacious and wild – Rue Morgue

Published

on

Movie Review: Here comes “THE BRIDE!”, audacious and wild – Rue Morgue

That’s both a promise and a challenge she delivers, since what follows may rub some viewers the wrong way. Yet Gyllenhaal’s full-throttle commitment to her vision is compelling in and of itself, and she has marshalled an absolutely smashing-looking and -sounding production. The story proper begins in 1936 Chicago, which, like everything and everyplace else in the movie, has been luminously shot by cinematographer Lawrence Sher and sumptuously conjured by production designer Karen Murphy. Her involvement is appropriate given that her previous credits include Bradley Cooper’s A STAR IS BORN and Baz Luhrmann’s ELVIS, since among other things, THE BRIDE! is a nostalgic musical. Its Frankenstein (Christian Bale), who has taken the name of his maker, is obsessed with big-screen tuners, and imagines himself in elaborate song-and-dance numbers. (Considering the reception to JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX, one must applaud the daring of Warner Bros. for greenlighting another expensive film in which a tormented protagonist has that kind of fantasy life.)

THE BRIDE! may be revisionist on many levels, but its characterization of its “monster” holds true to past screen incarnations from Karloff’s to Elordi’s: His scarred appearance masks a lonely soul who desires companionship. Frankenstein has arrived in Chicago to seek out Dr. Cornelia Euphronious (Annette Bening), correctly believing she has the scientific know-how to create an appropriate mate for him. Rather than piece one together, Dr. Euphronious resurrects the corpse of Ida (Jessie Buckley), whose consorting with underworld types led to her brutal death. Previously chafing against the man’s world she inhabited in life, she becomes even more defiant and unruly as a revenant, apparently possessed by the spirit of Shelley herself, declaiming in free-associative sentences and quoting rebellious literature.

Buckley, currently an Oscar favorite for her very different literary-inspired role in HAMNET, tears into the role of the Bride (who now goes by the name Penny) with invigorating abandon that bursts off the screen. Unsure of her identity yet overflowing with self-confident bravado, she’s the opposite of the sensitive “Frank,” but they’re united by the world that stands against them. That becomes literal when a violent incident sends them on the lam, road-tripping to New York City and beyond, on a trail inspired by the films of Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal), Frank’s favorite song-and-dance-man star.

With THE BRIDE!, Gyllenhaal has made a film that’s at once her very own and a feverish homage to all sorts of cinema past and present. It’s a horror story, a lovers-on-the-run movie, a crime thriller, a musical and more, and historical fealty be damned if it makes for a good scene (as when Penny and Frank sneak into a 3D movie over a decade before such features became popular). In-references are everywhere: It might just be a coincidence that the couple’s travels take them past Fredonia, NY (cf. “Freedonia” in the Marx Brothers’ DUCK SOUP), but it’s certainly no accident that the former Ida is targeted by a crime boss named Lupino, referencing the actress and pioneering filmmaker whose works included noirs and women’s-issues stories. Penny’s exploits lead legions of admiring women to adopt her look and anarchic attitude, echoing the first JOKER (while a headline calls them “Twisted Sisters”), and the use of one Irving Berlin song in a Frankensteinian context immediately recalls a classic comedic take on the property.

Whether the audience should be put in mind of a spoof at a key point in a film with different goals is another matter. At times like these, Gyllenhaal’s pastiche ambitions overtake emotional investment in the story. As strong as the two lead performances are (Bale is quite moving, conveying a great deal of soul from behind his extensive prosthetics), it’s easier to feel for them in individual scenes than during the entire course of the just-over-two-hour running time. The diversions can be entertaining, to be sure, but they also result in an uncertainty of tone. The dissonance continues straight through to the end, where the filmmaker’s choice of closing-credits song once again suggests we’re not supposed to take all this too seriously.

Advertisement

There’s nonetheless much to admire and enjoy about THE BRIDE!, and this kind of risk-taking by a major studio is always to be encouraged (especially considering that we’ll see how long that lasts at Warner Bros. once Paramount takes it over). Beyond the terrific work by the aforementioned actors, there’s fine support from Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz as detectives on Penny and Frank’s heels, with Sandy Powell’s lavish costumes and Hildur Guðnadóttir’s rich, varied score vital to fashioning this fully imagined world. Kudos also to makeup and prosthetics designer Nadia Stacey and to Chris Gallaher and Scott Stoddard, who did those honors on Frank, for their visceral, evocative work. Uneven as it may be, THE BRIDE! is also as alive! as any film you’ll likely see this year.

Continue Reading

Trending