The Hangover Part III (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
285 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
What's all the fuss about?!?!?!?!
Jaylon Pahsetopah15 May 2014
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 ;)
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Only good for few Nostalgia-laughs.
umer_uf24 May 2013
You know that one joke you tell at every party? It was hilarious the first time you told it. So you kept telling it over and over again. You told your mom, your friends, your wacky uncle and heck you even told it to your baby sister. Each time you tell that joke it lost some of its charm and you know this in your heart, but you keep telling it because it made you someone who was at least bearable at the office party. The Hangover Part III is THAT dreaded, self-destructive joke.

The first The Hangover was a surprise to everyone. It was a smart, engaging and an all-around funny move. It made the three protagonists into overnight stars, along with Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong). Since The Hangover these four guys have experienced great success; Bradley Cooper has been nominated for an Oscar, Ed Helms became a little more then Andy from The Office, and Zach Galifianakis (the funniest of the bunch) starred on HBO's Bored to Death and Ken Jeong is a recurring character on Community. It's no surprise then that The Hangover made these guys in demand, and had the audience craving for more. So what better way to give the masses what they want than bringing the Wolf Pack back together for two more subpar movies. The Hangover Part III brings the crew back together for yet another wacky adventure, this time getting them to go to Tijuana and back to Vegas. There isn't really much to tell you about the plot that you can't figure out yourself. So it makes very little sense to go in any further detail about it, and I can move on to things that worked.

By far the funniest moment during the movie for my money's worth was when some girl in the theater screamed out loud after seeing one of the main character dangle for his life. The whole theater roared, and it was a genuinely hilarious moment. Too bad the same can't be said about the rest of the movie. No doubt there were some funny moments and personally the best bits of the movie were when Melissa Mccarthy was on the screen. Some of the other funniest moments were throwbacks to the original. I found myself doing a lot of "ooh I remember that from the first movie. Ha ha that reference is funny." Unfortunately that is all this movie is, it's a reminder of how great The Hangover was and we should nostalgia- laugh (is something I just made up) because we once thought there was no one funnier than Zack Galifianakis. Other than that any original content was drab at best.

The best laughs came from all the supporting characters, and the 'Big 3' it felt like were just there to collect the pay check. Bradly Cooper was by far the worst of the bunch. It's hard to believe that this is the same guy who was nominated for an Oscar not very long ago. Ed Helms and Zack Galifianakis were at least trying.

It was the overall chemistry of the three characters that made the original so great. The Hangover was a perfect recipe of Mac and Cheese where you threw in random ingredients and IT WAS THE BEST MAC AND CHEESE YOU EVER MADE! You tried replicating the original time after time, and tasted nothing but cheese and disappointment. It was just another Mac and Cheese. Sure it was served its purpose of feeding your broke student ass, but you yearned for that perfect gourmet Mac and Cheese fit to serve Gordon Ramsay himself.

The Hangover Part III is not a movie for people who are looking for genuine comedy. There are some very funny moments but the cheap laughs far outnumber the good ones. If you're going in expecting a repeat of The Hangover then don't waste your time and money. If you were disappointed by The Hangover Part II this movie will only throw salt on your wounds. It's sad to see such an initially brilliant trilogy end like this. Hangover 3 was nothing but one last attempt at squeezing every last dollar from the franchise. The Hangover Part III gets 5 nostalgia-laughs out of 10.
57 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Almost completely humourless.
Troy_Campbell24 May 2013
I'm not going to sugar coat it: this movie stinks. After the gut-busting hilarity of the 2009 original, this comedy franchise has been struck down with a severe case of sequel-itis. The carbon-copy second instalment was stale for the most part yet still managed a handful of laughs thanks to the general funniness of Zach Galifianakis' socially demented Alan; this episode however, is almost completely devoid of humour. The writing has become increasingly reliant on the natural charisma of the headlining star trio - with the plot here being laborious and woefully lazy - and the irritating Chow (Ken Jeong), the weakest link in part one, inexplicably gets even more screen time to screech and make our eardrums bleed. If it weren't for an amusing set piece atop Las Vegas' Caesar Palace hotel and a best-for-last gag during the end credits, I would've given this the one star treatment. I was desperately hoping this series would regain some form and finish with a bang, but unfortunately the wolf-pack's last adventure barely makes a whimper.
235 out of 339 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lazy, cynical, and mean-spirited - the end could've come sooner
Steve Pulaski26 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I watched Todd Phillips' original Hangover film in theaters under normal, unassuming circumstances and walked out believing I had just witnessed a comedic masterpiece. It had the luxury of appearing just funny enough from the trailers and the fact that it was released during the time where the Apatow-esque comedies began to take way after something of a comedy recession. I loved it and believed it was one of the strongest comedies of the last decade. Its sequel, released in 2011, was, to say the least, a colossal disappointment. It featured mostly the same premise, with slight location and plot changes, and wasn't assisted by creativity and curiosity in terms of where the plot was going to go, unlike its predecessor.

And now the inevitable Hangover: Part III is out, which is unworthy of bearing the franchise's name and certainly isn't good enough for the Roman Numerals in its title. This time the film doesn't amplify something that was done previously only significantly better, but instead makes this a cynical, mean-spirited follow-up featuring characters we grew to like in the original but now sort-of can't wait to see gone. The posters for the film boldly claim "The End" and my only response is "You're Late." The film reunites Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Doug (Justin Bartha), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis), the notorious "Wolfpack" who decides that after Alan's recent stint with a giraffe on a freeway that he needs to be taken to rehab and put back on medication. The four decide to travel to Arizona together, when they are run off the road by Marshall (John Goodman, in perhaps the strongest performance of the entire franchise), a gangster who has been robbed off $21 million worth of gold from Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong). Being that the Wolfpack were close with Chow, Marshall kidnaps Doug and demands that Chow and his gold be returned to him. Cue the barrage of silliness and misunderstandings now.

The main difference between the two previous Hangover films and this third installment is that this one takes an approach more in line with an action film than a comedy. I see something more reminiscent to a Bad Boys III rather than the final installment to a long-running comedy trilogy. Actions scenes evoke the quickest and most irrevocable kind of monotony and with a series that is already beginning to feel like it has been carried out way past its prime, this only cements it.

And if that doesn't turn you off, the belittling mental illness subplot and the animal cruelty will likely do the trick. With Alan being off his medication, the character is given the most screen time in the film. Not to mention, Chow is given much more as well, and if we learn anything, it's that these two characters were better in small doses. Alan's dim-witted comedy and Chow's drug-related witticisms were at one time fun and fresh, but now, stale and flavorless. Furthermore, this is by far one of the most aggressive Hangover pictures in terms of what it portrays as comedy. It must be something of record that a one-hundred minute mainstream movies features the decapitation of a giraffe, the smothering of a rooster, and the poisoning of two dogs in an attempt to create humor. It's a sick, deplorable tactic that Phillips, who has shown his talent for giving characters something fun to talk about, uses in order to drum up either controversy or laughs or both.

Had the original Hangover stood on its own, not possessing sequels of lesser quality leaching off its name, it could've very well become a classic in the next several years. Not only that, it could've been seen as a studio marvel, one that didn't need to "push the envelope" with sequels and redundant attempts to break taboos. Alas, it is too late and it's a shame the untold millions the previous sequel grossed and the final installment will inevitably gross are put to two lesser films. I end with the the encompassing hope that the taglines for this film prove prophetic.

Staring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zack Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, John Goodman, and Mike Epps. Directed by: Todd Phillips.
51 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Hangover becomes Mission Impossible
ThePhantomMovieBuff6 September 2013
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.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A waste of time
rkRusty25 May 2013
You can't deny the success of the Hangover trilogy and its notoriety, and yet typical of many sequels before it, The Hangover Part III fails at almost every hurdle. From humble and I dare say somewhat original origins from the first Hangover, out is produced a loud-mouthed, vulgar and humourless successor. Little in this film captures attention in an admirable light. Abundant is the nonsensical, violent drive that paved the way for a series of good jokes in the first film, yet now no longer we see the laughs, merely the stupidity left in wake. There is no humour, no sense of longevity beyond a month or two, or even the mildest gesture towards good entertainment. Instead, a monotonous undercurrent of rushed scenes, placid dialogue and exaggerated violence carried throughout makes "The End" quite well a heavy thud into in-existence for the Hangover franchise.

Did anybody really expect brilliance? Likely not. Which is good, it should just make this final flick a forgettable yet entertaining encore to the previous films. But it's not. It's just a mess of too much money and a desire for more.

Nothing about this film appeals, nothing makes it worth seeing. Go to the park. Walk the dog. See something else. Just don't waste your time. One day everything will come to an end. Prolong your success with a final, exciting goodbye, or keel over into nothingness as one of the many forgotten films of Hollywood. The Hangover Part III likely won't dent the enjoyment most people think of at the first film, but it has formally announced that this, truly, is "The End".
125 out of 186 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
All the hate???
joeybachor17 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this movie was 2nd best possibly 1st in the trilogy. I hear the term "no hangover" that's why it sucked or it was lazy or unfunny but it was a serious drama/comedy the hangover series has a deep story in 3 it all comes together the movie was great I have no clue why people hate it but I recommend it. its a good time. also the hangover part 3 had a lot of original things from the first one so when people say it what out of plot or unoriginal then there Solly mistaken great movie though I hate all the hate on it doesn't deserve the hate it was well done. it even had done good at the box office and some decent reviews so are these hate reviews all from one spam mer or?
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the Laziest Comedies in Recent Memory
Michael_Elliott23 May 2013
The Hangover Part III (2013)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Man, if you thought things couldn't get any worse than THE HANGOVER PART II then sadly you were mistaken. The Wolf Pack are back and this time a gangster (John Goodman) are after them because Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) stole forty-two million in gold. I'm really not going to waste anytime writing out everything going on here in regards to a plot synapses because why should I? It's clear that director and writer Todd Phillips along with stars Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis just made this thing either for the money or they had some sort of contract that required them to do so. While watching this thing it became rather sad because there simply weren't any laughs but what was worse is that it didn't seem the group were trying to make anything funny. This here is without question one of the laziest comedies I've ever seen because the filmmakers don't even bother to even attempt any laughs and what laughs there are are usually just winks to the first picture. It's really amazing to see how this series has fallen after a clever first film but the old saying that sequels usually end up poorly is certainly true. Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis fit their roles just fine but there's just no energy to be found here. Perhaps even they knew the screenplay was lackluster. Jeong is good in small doses but putting him into so much of this just made his character annoying. Goodman was good in his part but sadly he wasn't given much to do, which is the same for Mike Epps and Heather Graham. THE HANGOVER PART III claims to be the final in an epic series of films and lets pray that it really is. Bad movies happen sometimes even when everyone had their hearts into the project. There's just no evidence here that anyone cared about anything other than money. Part two proved that people would show up no matter how bad it was and the filmmakers got even lazier by delivering something worse.
185 out of 297 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hangover Part 3 - Without a hangover
Nic Jay3 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I am so disappointed. i absolutely loved the hangover parts 1 & 2, and was so excited about the 3rd installment, even going to see the midnight screening, but was so let down. I still don't even understand what the writers were trying to do? were all the comedy writers in Hollywood all sick at the exact same time this script was being written? Worst of all, No One was Hungover! How can you name a movie the hangover, when it involves no drinking, stupidity or a hangover? the only part i can honestly say i loved was the short after wedding skit after the credits. THAT is the movie i wanted to watch, along with everyone else in the cinema from what everyone started screaming at the screen. Please make that into an 1 1/2 hour long film to regain the honor of a hangover movie, coz what i watched, was dismal at best.
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Hangover Pt. III: The End- A Whimpering End to the "Adultolescent" Trilogy that has Very Little Amusement but Loads of Ugliness and Cruelty
generationfilm23 May 2013
More often than not people end up learning the hard way that it's usually better to leave a good thing well enough alone, which might be a lesson truly lived in regards to the quality of what can be deemed as The Hangover trilogy. When the exceptionally lazy Hangover Pt. II was released two years ago it highlighted the immense limitations of director Todd Phillips' storytelling capabilities as it traveled a carbon copy of the first film's intoxicated mystery and amplified vulgarity to different scenery but forgot to bring the laughs along for the trip. Now it seems the Todd Phillips created Hangover trilogy has taken to unintentionally embodying the stages of an actual hangover with the first installment's introduction serving as the party, the dirtier and lazier sequel acting as an unconscious blacked out sleep, and the newest final part becoming a nauseous, unbearable aftermath. The Hangover Pt. III: The End promises the conclusion of what could have been a respectable "adultolescence" comedy franchise and after experiencing the third installments descent into darkness and bitterness let's hope it's a promise that is inevitably kept. Todd Phillips and co-screenwriter Craig Mazin (Identity Thief, Scary Movie 3) have tossed aside all sense of wit, surprise, and genuine humor this time around replacing those qualities evident in the first Hangover with sociopathic cruelty, foreseeable plot changes, and zero sense of amusement diminishing any admirable attempt to change up the plot formula. All the fondness audiences have gained towards the characters of Alan (Zach Galifianakis), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Stu (Ed Helms) will be tainted in this final chapter as a mixture of performance idleness, poor script follow through, and a lens focusing on their purely sober qualities makes these three characters less than sympathetic, even bordering on incredibly unlikeable. What's ironic is that Todd Phillips has gone out of his way to appease the vilest of criticisms towards his uncreative writing and yet ends up highlighting his true creative limitations by not being able to drift away from a familiar structure. Unfortunately for fans of the series and audience members hoping for a strong summer comedy The Hangover Pt. III: The End ends this less than comedic trilogy with a desperate whimper and through its mean-spiritedness becomes a barely recognizable thread to the humorous and delightfully ill-mannered film that started it all.
153 out of 247 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A lazy milking of the cash cow.
MobyTontyn26 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I decided to go and see this film as I am a fan of the first film in the franchise - the second was not enjoyable, but I had hoped the conclusion would be a return to form. I was hugely disappointed by the lazy script, cruel tasteless gags, and the predictability of the film. I love comedies, I have a sense of humour, but I only laughed once or twice. The cruel animal death 'jokes' killed the mood of the film. They were cheap and quite shocking. I know these films are supposed to be shocking, but it is not clever or witty to make jokes out of serious issues like cockfighting - I didn't want to watch a rooster get slowly smothered by an imbecilic Asian man. I wanted to enjoy a fun experience like I did with the first Hangover film. Mr Chow is a hugely irritating, monotonous character, whose only purpose seems to be to hurl out nonsense at every opportunity. The Hangover Part III will ruin the experience of the first film for you - if you want a film that is original, and good fun - avoid this shameless grab for cash. I can honestly say this was a chore to watch. 1/10
25 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
NOT A Comedy At All... And Not Very Good
scotts86323 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is NOT a comedy in any way shape or form. It takes the characters from the first two films to a dark conclusion but absolutely none of it was fun or funny in any way. It's not just expectations talking because I watched it with lowered expectations. That's not to say it's completely uninteresting because somehow you care what happens to these guys even though the story presented here is very shallow.

I honestly didn't laugh even once until after the conclusion. Even then, a few minor chuckles at best (the pants/"pornographie" actions and comment) and the after credits stuff is mildly amusing. This was a very strange way to end a trilogy that started with what I found to be comedy gold.
61 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A limp, unimaginative, charmless, joke-free action movie, pretending it's a comedy, and one that should be shunted and long forgotten
Likes_Ninjas9024 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Director Todd Phillips (The Hangover series, Starsky and Hutch) said that he felt there was freedom in making R rated movies and that it provided energy and aggressiveness. There has been a lot of testosterone and energy used in the revival of the 'man-child' films made by Judd Apatow and Phillips recently. Some of these are throwbacks to the raunchy comedies of the 1980s, where teenagers could watch raunchy, adult entertainment. When similar films embrace rather than critique the man-child syndrome however, they reveal how outdated and archaic they are because their target audiences are now older and smarter and deserve more.

The bromance subgenre could be traced back as far as any Western but today it echoes Hollywood's fixation on male friendships and reveals the general misogyny of the studio system as it hinges most of its resources on male orientated films. The reckless stupidity associated with not all, but many of these bromance films, amounts simply to wasted energy, aggressiveness and chaos, still in search of the word adult.

In spite of racist and misogynist undertones, the first Hangover movie drew appeal from the fact that its story seemed shrouded and mysterious, as its central characters uncovered their idiocy from the night before. It was about them coming to terms with their actions. If the sequel was a poor, laugh free cash-in, this third film challenges it to lower the bar past juvenile and into a new zone of painfulness.

Lame, unfunny and poorly made, this is not simply a question of juvenility or gender politics, but how far a director and producer is willing to sell-out a popular cast and franchise name for something that displays his own ineptitude.

Zach Galifianakis' opening scene, where he drives along a highway with a giraffe in the trailer, is an example of the attention-seeking, mean- spiritedness found in The Hangover Part III. What isn't shown in the film's previews is that when the giraffe reaches the overpass its head is knocked clean off and it smashes into a windscreen, causing a pileup of cars.

Animal cruelty features three times in this movie and like everything else here it's grimly unfunny. Who would have thought? The writing in Phillips' screenplay, co-written by Craig Mazin, is generally awful. The jokes aim low and still miss and there are three or four long, laboured transition scenes where the characters stop to signpost the next lurching stage of the plot through lazy expositional dialogue. There's no mystery or actual hangover till an end credits scenes, which means the title is now redundant too.

The story structure is dull and rigid, now resembling a heist action movie as the Wolfpack search for gold. After the giraffe incident and the death of his father (Jeffrey Tambor), Alan (Galifianakis) is forced into an intervention by his Wolfpack friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha). They prepare to take him to a clinic, only to be ambushed by Marshall (John Goodman) who kidnaps them. He reveals that Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) has escaped from prison and has stolen half his gold. He wants it back and says that he will kill Doug if they don't comply or contact the police.

Todd Phillips' dependability on Galifianakis is the sum of why the film is so unfunny. No one else is allowed to try and be funny, unless you think a grotesquely exaggerated Asian stereotype counts, but then I've never liked Mr. Chow. Bradley Cooper, after his career defining performance in Silver Linings Playbook, is called to do so little that Phillips seems utterly daft about his comedic talents. Once quirky and original, Galifianakis' mentally strained man-child act is now irritating and sad, with every quip line foreseen, which robs the jokes of their unpredictability.

If anyone were to say that the lack of growth in these cartoon characters is the point then it would be to excuse the dunderheadedness of this achingly boring and hopefully, but not definitely, last entry from what it is: a limp, unimaginative, charmless, joke-free action movie, pretending it's a comedy, and one that should be shunted and long forgotten.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Unfunny Comedy!
stuo5353-692-12902525 May 2013
What a disappointment. As someone who actually thought Hangover II was even funnier than the original, I was looking forward to seeing the third installment which promised to take us back to where it all started "Las Vegas" with more of the same humor?? How wrong I was to believe that! Gone was the spontaneous feeling you got from the Wolfpack waking up not knowing what has happened to them, which I felt was the most interesting part of the first 2 movies as you followed the characters as they hunted for clues into the night before! In this 3rd serving we get a boringly flimsy storyline that dragged on, very few laughs, a short visit to LV and a script that could have been written by a ten year old! Stu (Ed Helms) has few interesting scenes and is for some strange reason constantly put down by Alan (Zach Galifianakis, who has now been given the central role of the movie along with Leslie Chow(Ken Jeong) who's antics were bordering on childish stupidity. Bradley Cooper who plays Phil was given more time and lines but failed to be convincing in the delivery of the character. Sadly this was a movie too far for the writer/s as it was totally unimaginative and as I said at the beginning extremely disappointing.
40 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Do Not Listen To All these Negative Reviews!!
snapsnjays1525 May 2014
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie!! While it was not as good as the first, It still was a very funny and enjoyable movie! If you Like the hangover series, you will like this film. Zach Galafinakis once again stole the show, and MR CHOW was also brilliant. Again I do not know why there are so many negative reviews. Of course this is no Oscar winner, but it was still a great comedy movie in my opinion. I enjoyed it a lot, and have watched it several times since first seeing it! Do not listen to all of these negative reviews, go and watch it! I have come on IMDb so many times to check a movie and see all then negative reviews, and almost pass on watching a movie. Don't let this happen with hangovver 3! Excellent film. 8/10
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hangover III wraps things up quite nicely
viewsonfilm.com11 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Well I guess it's official, I'm eating my words as we speak. Yeah, I'm the guy who doesn't like sequels and yet here I am giving positive ratings to Star Trek Into Darkness and now The Hangover Part III. It's scary to think of what I might do next. If the new Fast and the Furious movie impresses me, I guess I'll just skip reviewing it and go straight into denial. But seriously folks, I went into the new Hangover with really low expectations. We're talking bottom feeder if you know what I mean. So from now on I think that's the key. I'm going to take this approach with every film I see. That way I'll stroll out of the theater as a movie critic that raves about everything and comes off as not so darn grumpy. Whoa, forget what I just said. I was merely kidding people!

Anyway, here's what occurs in part III. At the very beginning, we find mentally unstable "wolfpack" member Alan (Zach Galifianakis getting the most exposure he's had in any of the Hangover films) buying a giraffe, putting it in the back of his truck, and killing it on the freeway (I'm thinking you know how it happened). Upon doing this, he irritates his family and draws concern from the other "wolfpack" members (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha). Everyone but Alan, stages an intervention on his behalf to get him to a treatment center somewhere in Arizona. He'll agree to go if his three buds will drive him there. As the four of them set out on a moderately short road trip, their car is rammed off the road, they are dragged out of it (held at gunpoint mind you), and one of the crew (Bartha of course) is taken hostage. This sets off a chain of events which leads everybody to venture back to good old Sin City.

Well let's get down to it. Right off the bat I want to let you know why I liked The Hangover Part III. I enjoyed it for the exact reason that some critics panned it. This flick doesn't try to be like the other two in the trilogy. In fact, it feels like a totally different animal all together. Yes there is a dash of the funny (something part I did effortlessly and part II attempted miserably), but there's also a hint of darkness that comes close to turning everything into a sort of black comedy with shards of mild violence. For me, this is an effective way to wrap things up (unless there is a part IV of course). You can tell that the director (Todd Phillips) wanted to avoid copping out and injected part III with a little more juice (this is the other reason I liked it and most critics didn't. They think Phillips went way over the top or felt he had to prove something). He did the film justice by avoiding the same tired plot line (everyone gets smashed and wakes up not knowing what the heck just happened) while making an effort to tie together loose ends from the other two movies (by way of flashbacks). This is done to effect in the first 15 minutes and it sets everything in motion.

The actors then promptly assume their personalities from the first two installments. Doug Billings who's never around for the debauchery, plays the happily married nice guy. Alan, plays the screw loose, borderline mental patient who nonchalantly goes about his business. Phil, is the smug, unhappily married school teacher who is calm under pressure, and Stu is the manic anxiety ridden dentist who thinks all hope is gone. Together they fit their roles like comfortable old shoes. Overall their performances are manically unhinged. You get what's required of them coupled with a fresher more potently nasty script this time around (part II's had lazy written all over it).

As far as supporting work goes, I thought John Goodman (gangster Marshall) was a nice little addition to the Hangover family (he riffs off his Big Lebowski character but just not quite as intense). I also like the addition of a love interest for Alan (someone besides man crush Phil) in Melissa McCarthy. She seems to make a cameo in everything these days and certainly is a hoot as a pawn shop owner who candidly berates her wheelchair confined mother.

The only setback for this Hangover is the blatant deviation from the focus of the four stars of the movie (the infamous "wolfpack"). This exercise is bent on giving two supporting characters their own vehicle (Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow and Galifianakis). True these guys are funny and steal many a scene, but the other members of the cast don't get a lot of room to breathe. They get kind of pushed to the side and become sort of frowned upon (Bradley Cooper recently got nominated for an Oscar, give him some props for gosh sakes). And what's with always having Justin Bartha's character not present with the other members of the "pack" when the madness of their misadventures is going down. It seems predetermined and silly. What, is he not good enough an actor to occupy some precious screen time with his buddies (Bartha was in the colossal flop Gigli (2003) so maybe that's it, who knows).

When it all comes down to it, I found myself at ease with the way part III whisked by. It's darker than the first one, funnier than the second one, and more daring than both of them. I laughed, I winced, and felt confident in recommending this hot mess of a movie. It's a sequel all right, but it tries really hard not to be one. I admire that. With nothing to lose, you should go check out The Hangover part III. It's a solid time killer and a required "hair of the dog" if you will.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Zach is super annoying, not as funny, but it has heart
SnoopyStyle29 August 2013
Zach Galifianakis is now super annoying. When this started, we were laughing at him but his shtick is now tiring. They needed to downgrade his antics from mean-hearted to just simple stupidity. I know Todd Phillips is saving it for Alan to grow in this movie. But it started to happen too late.

Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms seem to be going thru the motions. We miss the face tattoo. They needed to do something to replace it.

Ken Jeong is actually doing something serious. In the first two, he was lovable bad guy. From the first moment as the naked guy in the car truck, we thought he couldn't do much damage. But in this one, he is causing real damage to the group.

John Goodman is doing a new character Marshall. He's a new bad guy looking to get Mr Chow for stealing his gold. So he kidnaps Doug to force the group to catch Mr Chow for him. It's rather serious, and not that funny.

It was good to see that Alan finally grow up, and dealt with Mr Chow.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as bad as most think.
trumpetdurant112 June 2013
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.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
samgreer-694-68074025 May 2013
This film should have been put in a recycle bin to make some plastic Dixie cups from. 4 or 5 plastic cups would have been a much better use of the material. Its hard for me to believe Cooper and Helms agreed to participate in this abomination.

Trouble with this film is its for a 12 or 13 year old, but you need to be 17 to get in and see it. Also the few chuckles in the audience sounded like they were from a 79 - 80 IQ patron.

If you are a 40 year old adolescent or have a room temp IQ you may find this amusing. A level beneath fart jokes, this expletive laden non-script couldn't give anyone a chance to act even if they had the skills.

I wish I'd have spent the 90 minutes reorganizing my garage or deleting old emails - and I'm not kidding at all. Hope this saves you an excruciating time (and $) this holiday weekend.
119 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't listen to anyone, watch it for yourself! :D
valwinderkaur30 May 2013
This movie. Was simply hilarious. A lot of people expected a bit too much from this Movie, but me personally did not. I have to say, it literally ended with a Bang. People are not thinking about how difficult it will be to make a Hangover III as if you could imagine yourself, the Director would be thinking what would be the Hangover about?

This story has a great twist, and it is best of for you guys to watch it yourself spending a couple of coins on the tickets and ''wollah'' enjoy.

10/10 Loved it! Specially the End! ( Comes after the Credits, don't leave your seats ).
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't listen to the hate!
Mason Churcher29 May 2013
Right, i'm going to keep this review short and sweet. I went to see this film the day after its release. If i'm honest, I didn't have high hopes as part 2 was such a flop. This is not the case for part 3!

Personally, I thought this was a film of two halves. The first half was extremely funny and had me laughing throughout. The second part summarised the film, whilst lacking in the volume of the comedy, it was still present. I definitely would recommend anyone to go see this and judge it for yourself. Personally, I am going again in the next few days, that is how much I enjoyed it! I thought it was better than part 1, but that is my opinion. Go see it for yourself and you will see what i mean!
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst movie of 2013
spmartin12225 May 2013
I could not believe how unfunny this movie was. I kept waiting for even a single joke to land. It was like they forgot what makes this kind of premise funny in the first place. It was truly awful and easily the worst movie of the year. The only laugh it got was when my wife and I both looked at each other and laughed that the movie was so unfunny. Shame on you cast and Director of the Hangover III. I want my money and time invested back. I texted all the people I love and care about and told them not to see this movie. This isn't even a rental. The title should never be mentioned in public ever again. THE WORST! As I am writing this I am still amazed how unfunny this movie was. It was like listening to a story from your grandma about how she went shopping at the grocery store...BORING!
96 out of 180 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Trilogy?!?....just simply turning a quick buck. A con-movie.
tan14152 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
To me it seems they borrowed a plot from another movie/script and replaced the characters with the ones from hangover get It's purely trying to milk out the characters for as much of our money as possible. Realising they have run out of ideas for a similar hangover movie. They just borrowed a script somewhere and try to cash in on its famous predecessors. A quick heists before people realize what the movie actually is. A con movie.

The funniest bit is the Giraffe sequence...but thats only at the start...not even part of the actual movie. Simply an amuse bouche.

The rest of the movie doesn't have any hangovers in it or really any comedic moments. Just a straight crime-caper trying to be funny.

Sad sad end and showing the true colors of the makers and participants of this movie.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A fitting candidate for the sewers of Bangkok
Warning: 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 people.

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.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews