|Page 3 of 29:||            |
|Index||282 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Welcome to the one of the most unpleasant motion picture viewing
experiences you are going to have this year or any year for that
matter. This movie celebrates the principle that by simply writing
checks, you can avoid accountability and responsibility for causing a
massive freeway pile up of cars and trucks that probably resulted in
fatalities or in numerous life threatening injuries of many innocent
The movie tries to build laughs by depicting two scenes of astonishing cruelty to animals involving a decapitation and suffocation by pillow; there is also a reference to the fate of two other animals that takes place off screen which does not make the knowledge any less unpleasant. A scene with an invalid elderly person in the span of a few brief seconds amply illustrates the selfishness and self absorbed nature of most of the characters populating this movie.
There is no comedy or humor in this movie or any laughs. There is a total of 3 minutes of glorious film in the 100 minute run time. This is 90 seconds of Heather Graham's luminous presence and artful grace and a 90 second sequence inserted into the end credits scrawl. The latter in a bitter twist of irony is a laugh out loud funny sequence that belatedly hints at what this movie could have been.
My negative opinion of this movie is not about my lacking a sense of humor or tolerance for outrageousness or edginess in a film. It is simply about wanting to see a decent comedy made by intelligent filmmakers. Instead, this movie is what you will find in abundance floating in the sewers of Bangkok where the movie begins and should have been left to rot.
Save your money and do not allow the howls of derision from genuine comedy lovers to be drowned out by the laughter of the filmmakers and actors with lucrative back end deals tied to the box-office gross as they strut their way to their banks to cash their checks. My 15 bucks is a goner, yours does not have to.
The now infamous "wolf-pack" needs no introduction. Bradley Cooper, Ed
Helms and Zach Galifianakis return for the third and final sequel of
The Hangover. Breaking the pattern of the first two films, the story
doesn't begin with a bachelor party and morning after hangover wherein
the pack is left to try to recall what happened the night before and
find the missing wolf. The Hangover III begins instead with a funeral.
A funeral is a good way to introduce it's audience into this much darker world the wolf pack finds themselves in. Thankfully the comedy doesn't seem as desperate, trying to squeeze laughs out of us with shock and disgust, as the previous sequel did. No, Part III focuses more on a revenge story filled with almost non-stop action.
The original Hangover film is a classic and introduced the world to the genius that is Zach Galifianakis. It was fresh, original, shocking and hilarious fun. The Hangover II was not only one of the weakest sequels ever made but also one of the saddest excuses for a comedy. It lacked any originality and came off more as a bad remake than a sequel. For instance, instead of Las Vegas it was Bangkok. Instead of a baby, they had a monkey. Instead of a rooftop, it was an out-of-order elevator. The only bits that weren't the same as the original, as I mentioned above, were additional low-brow shocks.
The Hangover Part III, though not nearly as bad as the second film, still doesn't stand out as a great comedy. In fact, it's more of an action/thriller with some very dark comedy mixed in thanks to Zach Galifianakis' character. What truly holds the film back is the character of Mr. Chow, who, as in the previous films, is as irritating and degrading as a character can get. He only works as a villain yet it seems director Todd Phillips isn't sure whether to make us hate Mr. Chow or glorify this cocaine-loving, sexual deviant with absolutely no redeeming qualities.
The funniest part of The Hangover III is that as an action/thriller, it is better than anything else Hollywood is currently producing in the genre. So where the comedy fails, the action and thrills are guaranteed to keep you entertained. It's also refreshing to see a Hollywood film with action that doesn't seem to be secretly funded by the CIA.
I think people have forgotten what movies like this are all about
If you want to laugh go see it, laughs are guaranteed ,if you have a sense of humour you will. If your uptight and pretentious it's not for you. Go watch something else . If you loved the first 2 you'll like this one . The first 2 are hard to beat but you'll laugh all the same. I love the catch phrases.
To keep it simple its all about Alan , Chow and the wolf pack. Poor Doug never gets a start probably because he's boring .Well worth a look .I loved it , don't be turned off by the Doug's of the world. There are too many negative people sharing their opinions.
Very funny we came out smiling can't beat that
This movie was not a bad movie at all. if you are willing to kick back for an afternoon and enjoy a flick, this is the one. there is not a whole lot of expectations for this movie. Yes the first one was great and the second ( which wasn't bad either even though it was a copy and paste)barley made it through. this one takes on a whole new journey that gave a decent conclusion and we get more in depth with the characters. this movie still had decent comedy and a good story with references from the first 2. even Chow has more screen time and we get one more wake up scene at the end with another misfortune. just watch it and don't expect too much.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Where do I begin...I am not a harsh critique but I am also not the
average movie goer, so here is my take on Hangover 3, which I believe
most who see it will agree was sloppy, rushed, and in-genuine.
The actors hearts, chemistry, and drive were not into it. Phil's lines came out forced and a bit off timing, Stu didn't have much to work with, and Alan's character development was probably the only thing that kept the movie trucking along. Funny? Sure, but not as funny as 1 OR 2, yes even 2. Don't get me wrong there were plenty of 2 second laughs, but nothing like the 1st or even 2nd film. It was all just so wrong.
The end credit scene is something I wished had been the first scene of the film, which I have seen others express as well. Btw, where was Mike Tyson? Was he not supposed to make a cameo? Overall, I was left unsatisfied and cheapened, but I am not sure why I was expecting anything less than that but to feel cheapened. Todd Phillips, take a break, take some notes, live life, stop cashing in and then come back to us.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Todd Phillips and Zach Galifianakis are both cynical, bitter
filmmakers. This is essentially their middle finger to the fratboy
crowds who swallowed up the first two films in the franchise. "Hangover
III" is less comedy, more dark action thriller, and much of the comedy
that does exist here centers upon sociopathic behaviour. Alan
(Galifianakis) was always a somewhat disturbing manchild, but the first
film played most of his laughs on the naive side. When he made
inappropriate gestures with the baby in the first film, for example,
and tried to show off to his friends, it came across like a little kid
who's being naughty and is taking delight in being naughty, without
fully understanding what he's actually doing. In the second film,
however, when he sabotaged everything, he took on a more demented,
decidedly self-aware tone. And in this movie, he's a borderline
sociopath. His fascination with Bradley Cooper has gone full-on
homoerotic (he suggests that he remove his shirt at one point), and his
relationship with Chow is likewise odd. He cracks up while reading his
rap sheet at a police station, chuckling at his charges for public
masturbation and lewd behaviour.
All of this, I assume, was of great delight to Galifianakis, who can finally bury his Alan character after four long years. He's never been afraid to make it clear how much he loathes the success he's had with this film, mainly because of the type of people the films engender themselves to (he spoke on Conan about the frat bros who come up to him in public and ask him to come get high or quote lines from the movie). Galifianakis is a talented actor and was an alt comedian whose stand-up basically thrived on darkly subversive material mocking easy mainstream targets, not far from David Cross' blend of humour, so one gets the feeling that he and Phillips -- who has a similar distaste for the public at large (he did, after all, get his start with a documentary about GG Allin) -- really delighted in their free-ranging ability to turn the Hangover franchise over and basically just bury everything that made it appealing to audiences in the first place.
Cooper and Ed Helms look lost here, in it solely for the paycheck; the story is pretty insulting and doesn't really push them together in a believable way. It's not feasible that these men would still be having adventures together after the last two films, but where there's $1.5 billion dollars in worldwide box office, there's a way...
The film's biggest mistake also contributes to its misanthropic edge: giving Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) more screen time, effectively bumping him up to a 4th Wolf Pack member. He was the worst part of the first film, and probably the second as well: only tolerable in small doses and funny only in the scene where he randomly (and nakedly) jumps on the Wolf Pack in that first installment. Chow is a miserable, weird, uncomfortable character, not funny in the least bit, and Phillips decides to make him a central plot point of this sequel.
This wasn't as bad a movie as critics would lead you to believe, nor is it as unfunny -- some of the sociopath bits with Alan, despite their disturbing nature, are quite funny (I liked the scene where he asks Cooper's character if his shirt is from Diesel). I give the team behind it props for having the guts to completely depart from the formula of the first two, as well as the tone of those other movies, even if they took it the wrong direction as a result.
But it is the worst of the franchise, a clear death knell for the series, and not the 'epic conclusion' I was kinda expecting it to be prior to the reviews flooding in. The second film was the typical '80s style sequel that rehashed all the elements of the original (monkey instead of baby, tattoo instead of missing tooth, etc.). This movie doesn't do that, but in Phillips and Galifianakis (the two I pin the blame on the most) delightfully mocking their audience so flagrantly, it's pretty clear that this movie isn't really going to find much of an audience with anyone. I'm glad I saw it, it's not the worst movie of the year, and it's at the very least somewhat interesting because of its departing tone, but it's not really successful as action film or as a comedy, so it just kind of exists for no reason other than easy money for all involved.
Really?? Terrible?!?!?! it was amazing! If it was even about a
Hangover, then you guys would be mad saying "It's exactly like the
first" that's what the whine on number 2 was about! It has a great
plot, a great story, great actors HILARIOUS ENDING AFTER THE CREDITS!
And a great ending to the wolf pack journey. It doesn't has a lot of sexual material, so it goes where the average R rated hit movie dares to go, with hilarious material without being fully sexual. And it has a lot of fresh new jokes that wasn't from the first (unlike number 2)
It's like 21 jump street! Just don't listen to what we think, watch it for yourself!
Then, you can fuss about it OR enjoy it, completely your mind ;)
Not so long ago in the year 2009, The Hangover exploded onto the scene
and was praised as one of the funniest films of the decade, with its
witty cast and the hilarious "re-tracing our footsteps to find out what
we did" routine running as the main plot. The Hangover Part II simply
changed nothing at all, and offered nothing new with the attitude of
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it." What will please fan's the most with
The Hangover Part III, is that is does not follow the same formula that
the first two did. However, a lot of fan's will be headed into
disappointment when they realize that this third instalment decides to
take a completely different change in direction than that of its
predecessors. And by completely, I mean very much drastically.
The story follows the Wolf Pack yet again as they try to help Alan (Zach Galifianakis) get back on track due to him being off his meds, and soon enough they get thrown into a Mission Impossible-esque mission to save their friend Doug (Justin Bartha, who yet again takes a miss on all the excitement) from Marshall (John Goodman), an angry gangster who wants' the Wolf Pack to find Chow (Ken Jeong, who has a much larger screen time in this instalment) and return to him to them with 21 million dollars in gold bricks that he stole. If not, Doug gets the offing.
A major plot point is the development of Alan. His friends Phil and Stu (Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms) are mature and grown men who have happily settled down, but he is still very much stuck as a spoilt rotten teenager within a man's body, and his life is going nowhere. Throughout the adventure, it really is a tale about Alan and watching him grow into the man he should have become years ago. Fans of The Hangover owe it to themselves to watch it, whatever their final opinion of it may be.
Whereas The Hangover Part III doesn't match the quality of its first part, it definitely doesn't deserve all the negativity it has been getting. The film does a good job of balancing the well known Hangover humour with the Mission Impossible-esque set pieces, and all the recurring stars do well reprising their roles. One of the biggest changes that The Hangover Part III entails is that there is no actual drinking/hangover sequence. There's also no wedding or no missing person (or a pot smoking monkey). Instead, it plays it much straighter and it knows what it wants to set out to do, which is to stray far away from the formula of the first two chapters. And by doing so, it makes the finale to The Hangover Trilogy one to remember.
My Verdict: The Hangover Part III is a fitting end to the trilogy, but despite its changes in directions fans will be divided, resulting in a love or hate for this final chapter.
I watched The Hangover Part 3 in the movie theaters the day before
yesterday. This time the main plot of Part 3 doesn't involve with a
bachelor party & wedding but, in the aftermath of Leslie Chow's escape
from maximum-security Thai prison and the death of Alan's father, Phil,
Stuart, and Doug (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Justin Bartha) a.k.a The
Wolfpack( that of course includes Alan) made a decision to take Alan to
the mental hospital to get his mental issues treated. But things start
to go wrong on the way to the hospital as The Wolfpack is assaulted and
Doug is taken hostage by a gangster Marshall (John Goodman) and Black
Doug (Mike Epps), who was from the first Hangover film. Marshall made
them aware that, during a $42 million gold heist, Chow stole half of
the gold and has escaped from the Thai prison. In order for The
Wolfpack to save Doug from Marshall, they must find Mr. Chow again and
get the stolen gold. The film takes place in L.A., Tijuana and Las
Vegas again just like in the first film. Heather Graham reprised her
role as Jade, the sexy stripper who married Stu from the first Hangover
movie. The film also stars Melissa McCarthy as Lathe pawn shop owner
Cassie, who is the first women that Alan immediately falls in love
I honestly thought the movie was awful. The motion picture pretty much did not made me laugh at all except the beginning and the post credits scene. If you are all curious about the post credits scene you all have to see it for yourselves, if you all want to. The rest of the film definitely had poor comedy & acting and it wasn't as really funny as the previous two Hangover films.In some ways, The film had two out of place genres Dramadey (Comedy-Drama) and Crime thriller. The film also had some dramatic acting that is also out place of the comedy genre of the film and it did not amazed me at all.
If the main plot of the film involves with a bachelor party and wedding it would still be terrible of course because it would pretty much repeat the same related plot and jokes from The Hangover part 1 and 2.Even The Hangover part 2 pretty much repeat the same related plot and jokes from the first one. That's the reason I think The Hangover should of have just been a stand-alone film with no sequels at all. Another problem that I have with the film is that it takes place in Las Vegas again just like the first one. The Wolfpack went to Las Vegas again just to look for Mr.Chow and the stolen gold in his condo in Caesar's palace hotel & casino and bring him to Marshall.
Here's my advice for the film: "Do not watch this film in theaters, if you buy a ticket to see this movie it would be a waste of money!" I would have to say it's so far one of the worst films of this decade.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'm still angry at the 2 hours of my life lost and the fact I threw $5 out the proverbial window. The Hangover Part III is without question one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen. What an absolute travesty of movie making this heap of rubbish is. How did this happen? How the hell did this script get past all the Hollywood executives? How did Ken Jeong's character get to be the main character and the center of the plot? Are you kidding me? This is not a comedy - let's get that straight. No movie that starts out with a giraffe getting decapitated on a highway can be considered a true comedy. Can it? That's in the first few minutes - later, dogs are killed, roosters are smothered - always a funny moment there! Bradley Cooper should be ashamed of himself. He seemed uninterested and it's obvious he was not enjoying himself. Ed Helms was, oh well, Ed Helms. Ho hum. Justin Bartha must have really, really, really, really needed the paycheck because his role is embarrassing and non-existent. Zach Galifianakis' role put him front and center as the man-child idiot savant who has a bigger role being more aggressive, arrogant, and dare I say, assertive. John Goodman's role as the bad guy heavy who got robbed of $42 million in gold bullion by ( applause, whistles and klieg lights please ) none other than Ken Jeong's "Mr. Chou" is mean, ugly and disturbing. Well, I saved the worst for last - Ken Jeong. His character is the main character. That right there is enough to know this train wreck is going nowhere near comedic enjoyment. He is a nasty, evil little punk. How's this for comedy - he blows Goodman and his associates head off with a .45 auto. How funny!! I laughed for hours! No. I was disgusted. I firmly believe 100% , that anyone can write a script that can be get made into a movie - anyone. I wouldn't watch this steaming pile of wretched refuse again if it was the last movie on Earth.
|Page 3 of 29:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|