The Hangover Part III Reviews
The only problem I had was this movie felt more of a heist/crime movie than a comedy. But nonetheless, it is a solid sequel and a good way to end the trilogy.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: It still can't quite live up to the first because the original idea was just golden. A rehashing failed, but a new leap forward still can't quite deliver in the same way.
VERDICT: Cut out the second, this is what the sequel should have been like. It's probably the best it could have been all things considered.
The things they did better than Part 2 were putting the crew back in Vegas, and coming up with an original plot that wasn't an exact replica of the first movie. Galifianakis and Jeong are funny and are still the highlights, but there aren't any Pros beyond that.
Unfortunately, the story seems very forced, there aren't that many surprises, and the stakes never feel as high as the other movies. It seemed like they spent too much time trying to tie up loose ends and give happy endings to the characters, which seems pretty unnecessary for what should have been a fast-paced raunchy comedy.
In the wake of Alan's (Zach Galifianakis) father's death, his ever 'supportive' friends Doug (Justin Bartha), Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) stage an 'intervention', prompting Alan to spend a short stint in a mental health facility to work through the emotions associated and his mental health issues.
But even before they reach the hospital, things begin to go array. Assaulted by a masked gang, Doug is kidnapped by heavy-weight thug Marshall (John Goodman) who demands they must find miscreant Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) and surrender him and the stolen gold bullion or else he will kill Doug.
Let the angst filled shenanigans begin.
Spinning the roulette wheel one last time, this official final chapter to the Hangover series promises only mild redemption from the misguided second instalment. Breaking out of Thai prison, the wolf pack returns to the scene their original crime, Sin City.
Where the initial instalments success lay in its concept reliability of four guys out to celebrate, and the theory, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. As an ex-pat of the gambling capital of the world myself, this statement not only allows, but somehow drives peoples to do the craziest of things on the excuse that whatever their secret, it is safe.
Part II attempted to recreate the theory in a seedier locale to avoid claims of regurgitation and failed so in Part III the misconceived scriptwriters opted for a watered down dreg of its original self with about as much success. With a mish mash of over-the-top skits that don't quite fit together and the misplaced plot being driven by minor characters; viewers are left scratching their head and pondering why for all the wrong reasons.
Although the addition of Goodman was a wise choice, Galifianakis and Jeong work far too in their attempt to conjure laughter. Cooper and Helms seem somehow neglected whilst the always sidelined Bartha is literally forgotten. It is fun to see Heather Graham back, even in its minimalist capacity.
The Verdict: When it comes to comedy franchises, sometimes drinking the spiked cool aide is not worth headache.
Published: The Queanbeyan Age
Date of Publication: 24/05/2013