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
Continue Reading
Advertisement
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

Review | Magellan, conqueror of Philippines, as we’ve never seen him before

Published

on

Review | Magellan, conqueror of Philippines, as we’ve never seen him before

4.5/5 stars

The Cannes Film Festival may be hosting yet another virtual-reality programme this year, but the most immersive event on the Croisette in the French seaside city so far has been the premiere of an old-school, two-dimensional, three-hour movie filmed in the classic 4:3 aspect ratio.

Revolving around its titular Portuguese explorer’s expeditions to Southeast Asia in the early 16th century, Magellan is relentlessly engrossing – an epic in which viewers witness the distress, death and destruction brought about by one man’s delusions of colonial conquest.

By presenting Ferdinand Magellan as a dogmatic, slave-owning colonialist who brooks no dissent from his quixotic mission, Filipino auteur Lav Diaz and his Mexican lead actor Gael García Bernal have delivered a subversive portrait of a complicated figure who has long been mythologised as a benign bringer of enlightenment.

Interestingly, Magellan also sets out to undermine the narrative about the explorer’s misdeeds in Diaz’s home country as well.

Rather than sticking to the orthodox view of Magellan’s death in the Philippines as a glorious victory against colonialism, Diaz depicts indigenous chieftains as scheming manipulators who use this pigheaded white man as a pawn for their own politicking.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Entertainment

What scares Ari Aster these days? His answer is dividing Cannes, so we sat down with him

Published

on

What scares Ari Aster these days? His answer is dividing Cannes, so we sat down with him

“The sun is my mortal enemy,” Ari Aster says, squinting as he sits on the sixth-floor rooftop terrace of Cannes’ Palais des Festivals, where most of the screenings happen. It’s an especially bright afternoon and we take refuge in the shade.

Aster, the 38-year-old filmmaker of “Hereditary” and “Midsommar,” wears an olive-colored suit and baseball cap. He’s already a household name among horror fans and A24’s discerning audiences, but the director is competing at Cannes for the first time with “Eddington,” a paranoid thriller set in a New Mexican town riven by pandemic anxieties. Like a modern-day western, the sheriff (Joaquin Phoenix) spars with the mayor (Pedro Pascal) in tense showdowns while protests over the murder of George Floyd flare on street corners. Too many people cough without their masks on. Conspiracy nuts, mysterious drones and jurisdictional tensions shift the film into something more Pynchonesque and surreal.

In advance of the movie’s July 18 release, “Eddington” has become a proper flash point at Cannes, dividing opinion starkly. Like Aster’s prior feature, 2023’s “Beau Is Afraid,” it continues his expansion into wider psychological territory, signaling a heretofore unexpressed political dimension spurred by recent events, as well as an impulse to explore a different kind of American fear. We sat down with him on Sunday to discuss the movie and its reception.

I remember what it was like in 2018 at Sundance with “Hereditary” and being a part of that first midnight audience where it felt like something special was happening. How does this time feel compared with that?

It feels the same. It’s just nerve-wracking and you feel totally vulnerable and exposed. But it’s exciting. It’s always been a dream to premiere a film in Cannes.

Advertisement

Have you ever been to Cannes before?

No.

So this must feel like living out that dream. How do you think it went on Friday?

I don’t know. How do you feel it went? [Laughs]

I knew you were going to turn it around.

Advertisement

That’s what everybody asks me. Everybody comes up saying [makes a pity face], “How are you feeling? How do you think it went?” And it’s like, I am the least objective person here. I made the film.

I know you’ve heard about those legendary Cannes premieres where audiences have extreme reactions and it feels like the debut of “The Rite of Spring.” Some people are loving it, some people are hating it. Those are the best ones, aren’t they?

Oh, yeah. But again, I don’t really have a picture of what the response is.

Do you read your reviews?

I’ve been staying away while I do press and talk to people. So I can speak to the film.

Advertisement

Makes sense. I felt great love in the room for Joaquin Phoenix, who was rubbing your shoulder during the ovation. Have you talked to the cast and how they think it went, or were they just having a good time?

I think that they’re all really proud of the film. That’s what I know and it’s been nice to be here with them.

Joaquin Phoenix, left, and Pedro Pascal in the movie “Eddington.”

(A24)

Advertisement

In the context of your four features, “Hereditary,” “Midsommar,” “Beau Is Afraid” and now “Eddington,” how easy was “Eddington” to make?

They’re all hard. We’re always trying to stretch our resources as far as they can go, and so they’ve all been just about equally difficult, in different ways.

Is it fair to say that your films have changed since “Hereditary” and “Midsommar” and now they’re more accommodating of a larger swath of sociopolitical material?

I am just following my impulses so I’m not thinking in that way. There’s very little strategy going on. It’s just: What am I interested in? And when I started writing, because I was in a real state of fear and anxiety about what was happening in the country and what was happening in the world, and I wanted to make a film about what it was feeling like.

This was circa what, 2020?

Advertisement

It was in June 2020 that I started writing it. I wanted to make a film about what it feels like to live in a world where nobody agrees about what is happening.

You mean no one agrees what is happening in the sense that we can’t even agree on the facts?

Yes. There’s this social force that has been at the center of mass liberal democracies for a very long time, which is this agreed-upon version of what is real. And of course, we could all argue and have our own opinions, but we all fundamentally agreed about what we were arguing about. And that is something that has been going away. It’s been happening for the last 20-something years. But COVID, for me, felt like when the last link was cut, this old idea of democracy, that it could be sort of a countervailing force against power, tech, finance. That’s gone now completely.

And at that moment it felt like I was kind of in a panic about it. I’m sure that I am probably not alone. And so I wanted to make a film about the environment, not about me. The film is very much about the gulf between politics and policy. Politics is public relations. Policy is things that are actually happening. Real things are happening very quickly, moving very quickly.

I think of “Eddington” as very much a horror film. It’s the horror of free-floating political anxiety. That’s what’s scaring you right now. And we don’t have any kind of control over it.

Advertisement

We have no control and we feel totally powerless and we’re being led by people who do not believe in the future. So we’re living in an atmosphere of total despair.

During the lockdown, I was just sitting on my phone doom-scrolling. Is that what you were doing?

Of course. There was a lot of great energy behind the internet, this idea of: It’s going to bring people together, it’s going to connect them. But of course then finance got involved, as it always does, and whatever that was curdled and was put on another track. It used to be something we went to. You went to your computer at home, you would maybe go to your email. Everything took forever to load. And then with these phones, we began living in cyberspace, so we are living in the internet.

It’s owned us, it’s consumed us and we don’t see it. The really insidious thing about our culture and about this moment is that it’s scary and it’s dangerous and it’s catastrophic and it’s absurd and ridiculous and stupid and impossible to take seriously.

Did that “ridiculous and stupid” part lead you aesthetically to make something that was an extremely dark comedy? I think “Eddington” sometimes plays like a comedy.

Advertisement

Well, I mean there’s something farcical going on. I wanted to make a good western too, and westerns are about the country and the mythology of America and the romance of America. They’re very sentimental. I’m interested in the tension between the idealism of America and the reality of it.

You have your western elements in there, your Gunther’s Pistol Palace and a heavily armed endgame that often recalls “No Country for Old Men.”

You’ve got Joe, who’s a sheriff, who loves his wife and cares about his community. And he’s 50 years old, so he grew up with those ’90s action movies and, at the end, he gets to live through one.

Let’s step backward for a second about where you were and what you were doing around the time you started writing this. You were finishing up “Beau Is Afraid,” right? What was your life like then? You were freaking out and watching the news and starting to write a script. What was that process like for you?

I was in New Mexico at the time. I was living in New York in a tiny apartment, but then I had to come back to New Mexico. There was a COVID scare in my family and I wanted to be near family. I was there for a couple months and just wanted to make a film about what the world felt like, what the country felt like.

Advertisement

Were you worried about your own health and safety during that time?

Of course. I’m a hyper-neurotic Jew. I’m always worried about my health.

And also the breakdown of truth. What were the reactions when you first started sharing your script with the people who ended up in your cast? What was Joaquin’s reaction like?

I just remember that he really took to the character and loved Joe and wanted to play him, and that was exciting to me. I loved working with him on “Beau” and I gave him the script hoping that he would want to do it. They all responded really quickly and jumped on. There was just a general excitement and a feeling for the project. I had a friendship with Emily [Emma Stone, whom Aster calls by her birth name] already and now we’re all friends. I really love them as actors and as people. It was a pretty fluid, nice process.

I haven’t seen many significant movies expressly about the pandemic yet. Did it feel like you were breaking new ground?

Advertisement

I don’t think that way, but I was wanting to see some reflection on what was happening.

Even in the seven years since “Hereditary,” do you feel like the business has changed?

Yeah, it is changing. I mean, everything feels like it’s changing. I think about [Marshall] McLuhan and how we’re in a stage right now where we’re moving from one medium to another. The internet has been the prominent, prevailing, dominant medium, and that’s changed the landscape of everything, and we’re moving towards something new. We don’t know what’s coming with AI. It’s also why we’re so nostalgic now about film and 70mm presentations.

Do you ever feel like you got into this business at the last-possible minute?

Definitely. I feel very fortunate that I’m able to make the films I want to make and I feel lucky to have been able to make this film.

Advertisement

There’s a lot of room in “Eddington” for any kind of a viewer to find a mirror of themselves and also be challenged. It doesn’t preach to the converted. Was that an intent of yours?

[Long pause] Sorry, I’m just thinking. I’m just starting to talk about the film. I guess I’m trying to make a film about how we’re all actually in the same situation and how similar we are. Which may be hard to see and I’m not a sociologist. But it was important to me to make a film about the environment.

I was asked recently, Do you have any hope? And I think the answer to that is that I do have hope, but I don’t have confidence.

It’s easy to be cynical.

But I do see that if there is any hope, we have to reengage with each other. And for me, it was important to not judge any of these characters. I’m not judging them. I’m not trying to judge them.

Advertisement
A director speaks with an actor on a street set.

Ari Aster, left, and Pedro Pascal on the set of “Eddington.”

(Richard Foreman)

I love that you have a partner in A24 that is basically letting you go where you need to go as an artist.

They’ve been very supportive. It’s great because I’ve been able to make these films without compromise.

Do you have an idea for your next one?

Advertisement

I’ve got a few ideas. I’m deciding between three.

You can’t give me a taste of anything?

Not yet, no. They’re all different genres and I’m trying to decide what’s right.

Let’s hope we survive to that point. How are you personally, apart from movies?

I’m very worried. I’m very worried and I am really sad about where things are. And otherwise there needs to be another idea. Something new has to happen.

Advertisement

You mean like a new political paradigm or something?

Yeah. The system we’re in is a response to the last system that failed. And the only answer, the only alternative I’m hearing is to go back to that old system. I’ll just say even just the idea of a collective is just a harder thing to imagine. How can that happen? How do we ever come together? Can there be any sort of countervailing force to power? I feel increasingly powerless and impotent. And despairing.

Ari, it’s a beautiful day. It’s hard to be completely cynical about the world when you’re at Cannes and it’s sunny. Even in just 24 hours, “Eddington” has become a conversation film, debated and discussed. Doesn’t it thrill you that you have one of those kind of movies?

That’s what this is supposed to be. And you want people to be talking about it and arguing about it. And I hope it is something that you have to wrestle with and think about.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Romeo S3 Movie Review: A formulaic masala fare that lacks focus

Published

on

Romeo S3 Movie Review: A formulaic masala fare that lacks focus
Story: DCP Sangram Singh Shekhawat (Thakur Anoop Singh) sets out to take down a deadly drug cartel in Goa. But when he crosses paths with a vengeful mafioso, the mission spirals into a deeper conspiracy—one that threatens the entire nation.

Review: Director Guddu Dhanoa’s action thriller follows a fiery cop, Sangram, who goes undercover to infiltrate a drug cartel and expose its masterminds. At the same time, he is investigating his mentor’s murder and grows convinced the two cases are connected. The story takes an unexpected turn, unfolding into a larger conspiracy involving a deadly virus—its only antidote in the hands of the self-proclaimed ‘monster’ mafioso, Jayant Makhija (Aman Dhaliwal). In the midst of this chaos, Sangram must also rescue investigative journalist Tanu (Palak Tiwari) after she’s abducted by Jayant and his father.

Written by Shailesh Verma, the film is an out-and-out potboiler that suffers from a formulaic plot, an unfocused screenplay, and a meandering narrative. It’s riddled with unexplained plot points, underdeveloped characters, and implausible twists—like Sangram’s transfer being stalled simply because a video of his vigilante-style justice against rapists goes viral.

Despite the below-par narrative, the film’s first half maintains an even pace and keeps you somewhat engaged as Sangram outsmarts the cartel. The film’s production values and overall look are serviceable, even if not standout. There are a few well-choreographed action sequences, though the film leans heavily on the tried-and-tested formula of slow-motion entries, car chases, and blowing up vehicles. The narrative is further weighed down by a one-sided love angle, with Tanu falling for Sangram, and songs that interrupt the flow.

Thakur Anoop Singh handles the action scenes well and has a decent screen presence, though his characterisation and performance often echo Ranveer Singh’s Simmba. His emotional moments, however, don’t always land. Palak Tiwari is passable as Tanu, but her character is severely underwritten, and she never quite convinces as an investigative journalist. Aman Dhaliwal enters in the second half and is excessively over-the-top as the menacing Jayant.

Advertisement

With too many plot points crammed into a single narrative, most of them unconvincing and half-baked, the film loses focus and impact. While a few action sequences manage to grab your attention, they aren’t enough to salvage the overall experience. Romeo S3 tries to deliver a massy action thriller but ends up as an over-the-top masala fare with little payoff.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending