Connect with us

Entertainment

'The White Lotus' Season 3, Episode 7 recap: Rick has his showdown

Published

on

'The White Lotus' Season 3, Episode 7 recap: Rick has his showdown

“The White Lotus,” Mike White’s black comedy anthology series, is back on HBO for a third season. Times staffers love an escape, but since we can’t take a trip to Thailand to stay at a luxury resort, the next best thing is to immerse ourselves in the new season. Follow along with us for each episode as we discuss theories, observations and our favorite moments leading up to the finale. (Read our recaps: Episode 1, Episode 2, Episode 3, Episode 4, Episode 5, and Episode 6.)

The knockout blows and roundhouse kicks of Muay Thai fighting hit “The White Lotus” this week — with flashes of a fight spliced throughout the episode — but the more intense combat was happening outside of the ring for our gaggle of rattled characters.

The episode picks up with Rick (Walton Goggins) and Frank’s (Sam Rockwell) arrival at the Bangkok home Sritala (Lek Patravadi) shares with her husband Jim (Scott Glenn) — Rick’s target in the plan to avenge his father’s death. And it’s as hilariously unplanned as you’d expect from two dudes who can make a catch-up session between friends feel like a fever dream. Wearing a baseball cap with the Lowe’s logo, Steven (Frank’s alias as the fictional director in this Hollywood movie scheme) is totally winging this meeting. What has he directed? Uh … “What haven’t I directed? Mostly action films. ‘The Enforcer.’ ‘The Executor.’ ‘The Notary’ — that was a trilogy.” What’s the role in this so-called movie that he wants Sritala to portray? “She is a former prostitute, now a madam, and she owns a popular bordello.” Wait, isn’t the role supposed to be based on her? And has he seen any of her past work? Name ‘em!

It’s no wonder Frank quickly ditches the herbal tea and requests whiskey for the improv work he has to do. But was giving up his sobriety worth it? Then, when Chelsea’s 50-year-old child Rick does get Jim alone, he doesn’t make use of the gun he swore he wouldn’t bring. But closure can take many forms. An affected Rick carries out his revenge by simply knocking back a seated Jim to the floor. With that out of the way, Rick and Frank, who is ditching his performative Buddhist mindset for the evening, party. Chelsea’s calls, meanwhile, go unanswered.

Back in the hills of Thailand, Greg/Gary’s (Jon Gries) bash is unfolding. With some encouragement from her curious son, Belinda (Natasha Rothwell) makes the most insane decision ever and willingly places herself inside the home of the man she believes may be responsible for Tanya McQuoid’s death. Greg/Gary asks to speak to her in private, where he insists he isn’t involved in Tanya’s death. Really! To prove how much of a non-murderer he is, he offers Belinda $100,000 — because Tanya would have wanted that — to help fulfill her dream of opening a spa and in exchange, she’d honor “his peace.” Belinda tells him she’ll think about it. (To quote the great Oda Mae Brown: “You in danger, girl.”)

Advertisement

Belinda (Natasha Rothwell) gets an offer from Greg/Gary for $100,000 to honor “his peace.”

(Fabio Lovino / HBO)

Other party-goers were experiencing their own internal conflicts. Saxon (Patrick Schwarzenegger), flying solo while his siblings are spending the night at the Buddhist center, is there with his parents. After receiving a reality check from Chelsea (Aimee Lou Wood) about his future as a loser back home, Saxon pulls his dad aside to figure out why he’s been acting strange. Saxon asks whether things are OK at work, emphasizing that he has nothing else going for him because he doesn’t have any interests or hobbies — sorry you had to hear it from us, blender — a medicated Tim, knowing his wife would rather be dead than poor, says everything is fine. Meanwhile, Victoria (Parker Posey) tries to rescue a woman dating an LBH (loser back home) at the party, inviting her to North Carolina.

Things aren’t any more relaxing at the resort — no matter how much Fabian’s vocal cords worked to soothe guests. Our favorite trio couldn’t smile through another dinner, and a passive-aggressive showdown, reminiscent of the recent season finale of “The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City,” begins. The conversation is particularly tense between Jaclyn (Michelle Monaghan) and Laurie (Carrie Coon). Laurie storms off, determined to go to the Muay Thai fight Valentin invited them to. While there, she cozies up to one of Valentin’s friends and goes home with him, only to be propositioned for $10,000 post-coitus — to pay off the debts of his sick mom, you see.

Advertisement

At the same fight, Gaitok (Tayme Thapthimthong) — finally on his date with Mook (Lalisa Manobal), who expresses her disappointment at his indifference to ambition and power over dinner — has a light-bulb moment when he spots Valentin and his friends. He recognizes their features and tattoos as those of the masked men who raided the resort. Is this his shot to muster some courage and impress Mook?

Now it’s time for Greg Braxton, Mary McNamara and Yvonne Villarreal, platinum-status members of “The White Lotus” frequent guest program, to break it all down.

A man in a dark shirt seated at a table with takeout cups near him as he chats with a woman, seen from the back.

Gaitok (Tayme Thapthimthong) finally goes on a date with Mook.

(Fabio Lovino / HBO)

Who do we think is the corpse this week? Will Tim’s realization that the gun is missing be more foreboding than Gaitok possibly leveling up as a security guard?

Advertisement

McNamara: The corpse is me because I am done trying to pretend that it makes any sense at all that the Ratliffs are all still without their cellphones. I mean Chelsea is on her phone constantly so it’s clearly not a resort rule and there is NO WAY that Tim and Saxon, who clearly knows something is up at work, would not have retrieved theirs. But I am now very worried that the corpse is Rick because there is no way Jim is going to take being shoved over lying down. I mean, did you see all those bodyguards? Still, I‘m sticking with Gaitok, particularly after his recognition of the wily Russians as the robbers and Mook’s goading him toward violence. (Red flag, Gaitok. Big red flag.)

Braxton: I’ve been kind of non-committal for a while on the corpse question, but I will throw out a few theories. I think it’s a pretty safe bet that Jim is going to return with Sritala to the White Lotus and track down Rick. He is not the type to take his wife being humiliated and deceived lying down, pardon the pun. When you pull a gun on a guy like him, you better freaking use it, or there will be payback. Also you don’t hire Scott Glenn for one episode. Although he will want to kill Rick, he also might kill Chelsea, bringing to fruition her “bad things come in threes” prophecy.

Villarreal: This week’s episode also has me thinking Gaitok is surely the corpse. His desire to impress Mook is going to have a tragic outcome — or as our Greg loves to say, “it will all end in tears.” But how? I’m not sure. I know there are a lot of questionable characters this season, but there’s something about Fabian I just can’t shake. And it’s not just that he’s a terrible hotel manager or that I’d rather hear the sounds of Saxon’s blender than be serenaded by him. The man seems destined to do something shady or stupid or both.

Let’s talk about the Rick and Frank show. What did you think about their meeting at the Hollingers’ home and what followed afterward?

McNamara: Again, Rockwell steals the show (I am dying for a cinematic trilogy of “The Enforcer,” “The Executioner” and “The Notary.”) Again, I am struck by the lack of believability — I get that Sritala is supposed to be starstruck by Power of Hollywood etc., but when it becomes clear that Frank didn’t even bother to do a quick Google, her lack of suspicion is very much at odds with all those bodyguards. As is Rick and Frank’s lack of concern after they left — I mean, isn’t Rick a little worried that he has to go back to Sritala’s hotel? Maybe she shoots him. I’m also very sad that Frank lost his sobriety.

Advertisement

Braxton: So Rick has been obsessed with getting his revenge on the man who murdered his father. It’s the defining core of his grief and pain. The big moment is finally here, but instead of being prepared with a solid plan, he wings it, not even taking time to give Frank some advice or background on Sritala so he can play his filmmaker ruse convincingly. What did they talk about on the boat over? It makes no sense. Sritala and her husband seem smart enough to spot an impostor, but they do nothing. And what was the trigger behind Frank tossing aside his sobriety and Buddhist devotion so fast and diving back into depravity? I call it another case of Emmy bait.

Villarreal: First of all, the Lowe’s baseball cap that adorned Frank’s head had my full attention — that small detail left me wanting an entire backstory on how it came into his possession. But on to important matters: The lack of planning to carry out Rick’s grand plan was so hilariously perfect to me. I don’t know why I expected these dudes to deliver anything less than a terribly executed plan — Rick’s meeting with Sritala to set the home visit in the first place proved he was terrible at lying. Maybe his catch-up session with Frank left him too dazed to remember the need for a very basic Plan 101 conversation? Frank at least tried his best to improvise, but to see his sobriety quickly dissipate at the stress of it all was indeed bittersweet. Their ensuing escapade will surely reach doom levels. Am I as delusional as Chelsea to believe Rick will come to his senses before he gets in too deep?

A man in a blue shirt and khakis sits across a woman seated on a couch with her phone.

Saxon (Patrick Schwarzenegger) has a heart to heart with Chelsea (Aimee Lou Wood). Could he be her next sad-boy soulmate?

(Fabio Lovino / HBO)

Chelsea made another sweet (or sad?) declaration of her love for Rick. But will he be her doom? Also, she and Saxon share some interesting moments in this episode. What’s going on there?

Advertisement

McNamara: Chelsea clearly likes her men damaged and brooding and Rick has become, quite frankly, a bore. So if tragedy strikes the Ratliff family, Saxon could become her next sad-boy soulmate. Or Tim, for that matter.

Braxton: Chelsea + Saxon = yawn. Chelsea’s constant whining and pining for Rick was getting old a few episodes ago. Now it just seems pathetic and doomed. She needs therapy.

Villarreal: I dunno. The parallels between Rick and Chelsea‘s reactions in last week’s episode — Rick in hearing Frank’s monologue; Chelsea in processing Saxon’s lack of memory over the activities he engaged in with his brother — has me believing they are soulmates. I know her declaration about wanting to heal Rick and her being the hope to his pain is the sort of thing that would cause a friend to tell her to run for the hills, but I hope they make it out alive and live happily ever after. And I hope Saxon reads the books and finds his soul.

Chloe’s wild story about Greg/Gary’s weird fetish — what is Mike White trying to say about sex with all these moments?

McNamara: Well, I didn’t believe Chloe’s story for one minute. I have no idea if or why Greg/Gary wanted them to have sex, but all of Saxon’s jaded alpha-maleness certainly fell away in this episode. Still, with the exception of Belinda (and by extension, her son), I don’t have much of an emotional connection with any of this season’s characters, so I have no idea what White is trying to say about anything. I am, however, very curious to see how he’s going to pull any of these threads together in the finale.

Advertisement

Braxton: The way she told the fetish story was so creepy. And Chelsea seemed to be approving of it. Once again, I feel there’s a lot of effort to be provocative this season without any real texture or meaning. I hope there’s something by the finale that will make it all make sense. But I’m losing hope.

Villarreal: The storytelling from some of these characters has me flashing back to “Are you Afraid of the Dark?” I love how Chelsea took it all in like it was a moderate level of crazy but not completely bonkers. I feel like Chloe is trying to set up a scenario that would set Greg/Gary off, but I don’t know why.

Three women in dresses seated at a round dinner table.

Jaclyn (Michelle Monaghan), left, Kate (Leslie Bibb) and Laurie (Carrie Coon) have a nice, uncomfortable dinner.

(Fabio Lovino / HBO)

The volcano of tension between the three frenemies finally erupted. But will it actually end their friendship?

Advertisement

McNamara: Well, I’m quite worried about Laurie at the moment — I’m not trusting that cab she jumped into. And should she survive the journey, I am wondering if Jaclyn will just stick her with the White Lotus bill.

Braxton: It’s really hard to root for a kumbaya moment with these three. And none of them seem to be having a good time.

Villarreal: If ever there was a moment to call a truce among friends, it’s to share the WTF moment of a guy asking for $10,000 after sex — and suggesting she can PayPal or Zelle it for ease, no less! If they all make it out of this trip alive, I don’t think this unpleasant excursion will end anything. It’ll just be another blip they’ll gloss over when recounting their stay and continue on like passive-aggressive besties until the next one. I, however, would like to know what happened with Dave!

And what did you think of Aleksei’s request for $10,000?

McNamara: I need to know if he asked Jaclyn for same and if she gave it to him.

Advertisement

Villarreal: Yes, I also wondered if this is a scheme with this guy group! How long before Tim considers this approach to rebuilding his fortune?

What did you think of the exchange between Greg/Gary and Belinda? Should she take the deal?

McNamara: Please call the police, Belinda. Like, now.

Braxton: First of all, Belinda should have played it much smarter: “First of all, make it $300,000, throw in that yacht and have your lawyer call my lawyer so we can get all this on paper. And if anything ever happens to me, my son will send all the dirt on you to the New York Times.” Not sure why she’s so concerned about what happened to Tanya, who was a neurotic mess, heartlessly crushing her dreams of owning a business.

Villarreal: I thought it was insane he was only offering her $100,000 in the year 2025. Like, hello? Maybe he went to the same University of Grand Planning that Rick attended. I did enjoy the way Natasha played that scene, clutching the purse and processing with eye blinks as he spoke. Belinda should definitely not take the deal — unless some more zeros are added to it. But, Greg B., if Belinda did accept Greg/Gary’s bid for her silence, and uses that money to open her spa, in a dark way, Tanya did help finance her dreams.

Advertisement

Lochy tells Piper he wants to join her in moving to Thailand — surprised? And, more importantly, what’s your take on Piper’s reaction to his decision?

McNamara: Piper wants to get away from her family and for Buddhism to be her thing. That was the most believable thing in the whole episode.

Braxton: Piper loves her brother, but she wants a break from her whole family. That is more important than the Buddhism thing.

Villarreal: This whole family needs distance from each other. I do find it a little weird how quickly Piper was set off by his proposal, considering how much she welcomes his company anytime else.

Who gets your Best Facial Expression award this week?

Advertisement

McNamara: Victoria, when the young woman protests that she actually loves her LBH husband. That incredulous double flinch/blink. Priceless.

Braxton: Gaitok’s “eureka” moment when he recognizes the thugs.

Villarreal: To avoid repeats, I’ll go with Frank’s reaction to watching a young Sritala perform. When he sincerely offers his thoughts on it — “I mean, it’s like MC Hammer, Peter Pan. It’s got a little Pippin.” — is pretty great, but it’s the way he tilts his head back with his sigh of “ahhh” as she says, “It’s the folk music and the rap music,” that’s gold.

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

Movie review: Supergirl is a blast

Published

on

Movie review: Supergirl is a blast

Last year’s “Superman” ended with Iggy Pop singing “Because I’m a punk rocker, yes I am” — an ironic coda for a superlatively square hero. But it rings straightforwardly true for Superman’s cousin.

Milly Alcock’s Kara Zor-El, or Supergirl, sports not a spandex suit but a Blondie T-shirt. When we meet her in Craig Gillespie’s “Supergirl,” she’s been on an interstellar bender for days. She’s more Courtney Love than Clark Kent.

Nonchalant and sarcastic, Kara is also a little Han Solo-ish, you might say, given that she moves capriciously through the galaxy in her junky spaceship while getting in fights in extraterrestrial bars. She’s a welcome, jagged riff on more buttoned-up superheroes, and Alcock is terrific in the role. If only “Supergirl” was as good as she is.

While the latest DC release, and second under James Gunn’s stewardship, has its moments, “Supergirl” struggles to match Kara’s punk-rock energy with an equally spirited supporting cast and story.

Skepticism seems to have gathered for “Supergirl” ahead of its release. Many fans have argued it wasn’t the right next step for DC Universe. But I’m not so sure. Alcock’s breezy cameo in “Superman” was one of that movie’s highlights. Handing the follow-up to her, and her faithful floating dog Krypto, strikes me as an extremely natural next step. When in doubt, follow the dog.

Advertisement

And much of “Supergirl” is winning. It resides almost entirely in space, touching down only momentarily on Earth. In its consistently creative production design, clever needle drops and underdog story arc, “Supergirl” resides a little closer to Gunn’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies than other DC entries. Its outer space is filled with cosmic detritus, mean characters and cute critters. Seth Rogen as the voice of a tiny alien co-piloting a space bus is an inspired concoction, as is a shabbier sci-fi realm with rest stops along the intergalactic highway.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Justin Baldoni and wife break silence after ‘It Ends With Us’ legal battle with Blake Lively

Published

on

Justin Baldoni and wife break silence after ‘It Ends With Us’ legal battle with Blake Lively

Justin Baldoni has broken his silence after reaching a settlement in a lengthy and highly publicized legal dispute with Blake Lively.

Baldoni and his wife, Emily Baldoni, presented a united front in an Instagram video the couple shared Wednesday that began, “So we have not spoken publicly for the better part of the last two years, and it’s not because we haven’t had anything to say, because Lord knows we have.”

The “It Ends With Us” actor and director said that although they’d wanted to address the debacle that involved dueling lawsuits with Lively, nearly two years of tit-for-tat fodder and culminated in a confidential settlement, “something was telling us not to.”

The couple said they prayed about when to make a public statement. “This feels like the moment,” Emily said.

“What does feel important,” she continued, “is that we can genuinely say that we are sitting here today feeling immense gratitude for so many things and so many people and so many things that have happened to us.”

Advertisement

“Gratitude has saved us,” Justin added.

“I also feel that it’s important as we say that — in that gratitude — it doesn’t negate the injustice and the pain that we have also felt in the last few years, and we’ve had to wrestle with so many things and try to understand so many things,” Emily said. “How could something like this even happen? Let alone disguised as a fight for women. So much to unpack. And the truth is, reality is, is that there’s been a lot of trauma for us to move through as a family, which also makes it hard to speak.”

“We don’t even know this is the right thing to say, but we just know we need to share something,” Justin said. “What I will say is that there have been so many painful things that have been spoken into existence — “

“Untruthful,” Emily broke in.

“We didn’t want to add to the noise, so we just wanted to let the justice system run its course,” he said.

Advertisement

“And the truth and the facts have spoken for themselves,” Emily said.

The couple’s statement comes a year and a half after Lively filed a bombshell lawsuit against Baldoni alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and several other charges on the heels of a messy “It Ends With Us” summer release and press tour that fueled rumors of on-set turmoil.

Less than a month after the allegations against Baldoni rallied Hollywood against him, he countersued Lively, her publicist Leslie Sloane and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, for $400 million in damages, claiming they’d smeared his name in the press and wrestled away his control of the film. His suit was later dismissed.

In May, two weeks ahead of the trial, Lively and Baldoni reached an agreement to resolve their legal dispute, bringing an abrupt end to the contentious battle.

“The parties in the Blake Lively and Wayfarer Studios litigation have reached an agreement to resolve the matters,” lawyers for both sides said in a joint statement.

Advertisement

“The end product — the movie ‘It Ends With Us’ — is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life. Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind. We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”

In June, a federal judge ordered Baldoni and his production company to pay Lively’s attorney fees related to his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against her, but rejected her bid for additional damages.

“So, how are we doing?” the filmmaker said in the Instagram video. “We are healing, and if you’ve ever been through something traumatic, you know that healing isn’t linear. It lives different every day, and we have had to rethink for ourselves what is real. What matters, and it’s this. It’s our family. It’s our friends. It’s our community. It’s our faith.”

Times staff writer Josh Rottenberg contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘The Guest’ Review: Trine Dyrholm Gives a Scorcher of a Performance in a Gutsy Danish Party-Gone-Wrong Drama

Published

on

‘The Guest’ Review: Trine Dyrholm Gives a Scorcher of a Performance in a Gutsy Danish Party-Gone-Wrong Drama

A family and friends gather for a naming-day ceremony at a Danish seaside hotel, but an unexpected appearance by one uninvited attendee (Trine Dyrholm) ruptures the veil of bland, happy-clappy familial unity in director Mads Mengel’s gutsy, well-wrought debut feature, The Guest.

The most audacious move here may be Mengel and co-screenwriter Christian Bengtson’s choice to write something that will inevitably invite comparisons with Festen (The Celebration), arguably the most notorious Danish-language film of the last 30 years, which similarly revolved around a bougie gathering disrupted by angry revelations. But there’s a savvy 2026 vibe about the way the film refuses to create florid melodrama out of quotidian crisis, and instead observes with generosity as the characters grope awkwardly toward emotional détente and mutual forgiveness.

The Guest

The Bottom Line

When wetting the baby’s head goes too far.

Advertisement

Venue: Karlovy Vary Film Festival
Cast: Simon Bennebjerg, Trine Dyrholm, Josephine Park, Peter Gantzler, Petrine Agger, Mette Klakstein Wiberg, Kristine Kujath Thorp, Buster Lund Luscher
Director: Mads Mengel
Screenwriter: Christian Bengtson, Mads Mengel

1 hour 40 minutes

Festen-alumnus Dyrholm, having a bit of a career moment with outstanding performances both here and in the recent The Girl With the Needle among others, leads a uniformly excellent cast in a work that deserves celebration on the festival circuit and beyond.

Dyrholm’s Vibeke is technically the first person we meet, although she’s seen only in shadow at first as she smokes and drives while her unattached seatbelt, caught outside by a closed door, clatters on the road. This is the kind of unsafe driving her son Karl (Simon Bennebjerg) so deplores, a point of contention later on in the story when he will steal her car keys in interest of her own safety and that of others.

Advertisement

But well before we get to that flashpoint, the film introduces Karl, effectively the film’s protagonist, as he arrives at the swanky resort with his wife Emilie (Mette Klakstein Wiberg) and their infant son Elliot (Buster Lund Luscher). The young family, who’ve chosen this new, secular tradition instead of a christening to welcome their child to the world, are there a day before the ceremony to meet up with core family members.

As this advance party settles down for dinner, a table that includes Karl’s sister Rikke (Josephine Park) and Emilie’s parents Frank (Peter Gantzler) and Kirsten (Petrine Agger), there’s a surprise: Vibeke is coming, courtesy of Rikke’s invitation. Karl is quietly furious and seems determined to turn her away, even when she shows up minutes later. Poor Frank and Kirsten look on confused, determinedly polite in their insistence that all family members should be welcome.

Bengtson and Mengel’s economical script carefully dripfeeds backstory as the film unfolds to explain that Karl hasn’t spoken to his mother in years, that Rikke has taken over all the daily mom management and that she’s very worn out by it. Even so, she insists Vibeke is regularly taking her medication and isn’t a problem these days, although to Karl every weird anecdote and moment of emotional intensity is an augur of impending chaos. Rikke counters that their mother is just “big, that’s her personality not her condition.”

Interestingly, that specific condition is never named throughout, although armchair diagnosticians might spot many of the signs of bipolar disorder. But the film’s emotional focus on the person and her actions rather than the label is also very contemporary, reflecting a more holistic, inclusive mindset and approach to dealing with mental health issues.

Which is all fine and dandy, until Vibeke duly does skip a dosage and starts getting manic. One of the first signs of chemical imbalance arrives during the ceremony on the beach, when Vibeke carries little Elliot much further away from the shore than anyone wants, creating a panic. From there it just gets worse as Vibeke picks up on the censorious feeling emerging from the other party guests, who had found her so charming the night before when she’d led everyone to the casino to play roulette and diverted a bunch of partying teenagers from the room next to Karl and Emilie so they could get some sleep. When the toasts at the formal dinner begin, Vibeke’s mood darkens much further, and if we’ve all learned one thing from Festen, it’s be very afraid when a Dane gets up to make a toast.

Advertisement

Cinematographer David Bauer’s nimble-footed lensing and use of natural light does indeed hark back considerably to the look of those Dogme 95 movies back in the day, as does the naturalistic editing style deployed by Louis Emil Ramm Seeberg. But there are plenty of sins against the rules of cinematic chastity that marked that movement, such as the ample space made for Lasse Aagaard’s affecting, low-key score that amps up the anxiety as Vibeke starts to spiral.

That said, Mengel keeps things simple in sonic terms when it really counts, letting the musicality of Dyrholm’s deep, sonorous voice ring out on its own in the big monologue scenes. She is, as ever, utterly mesmerizing but the performance is made even more powerful by the muted, expressive reactions of the rest of the cast as they look on, frozen like deer in the headlights of the car crash of pseudo-christening. Moments of levity puncture the gloom, but the final feeling is one of numbed sorrow and pity for all these kind, fallible people, just trying to do their best.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending