The Hangover Part III - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Hangover Part III Reviews

Page 2 of 274
½ February 20, 2017
Grade: B. A great step up from the disappointment that was "The Hangover Part II".
½ February 18, 2017
Mean spirited and distasteful.
February 15, 2017
Very fun for mature audience
February 5, 2017
Not as good as the first two but still a good addition if your wanting a laugh. Original cast still so all good.
February 4, 2017
I actually did not mind this sequel. I liked how they tried something different and it actually worked.

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.
January 31, 2017
Irregardless of what the Critics Consensus has to say about this intensively hilarious part 3, to the other 2 Gut Busting Comedies, that I personally can not get enough of, I loved this movie. As a matter of fact, I just watched this goodie last night, probably for like the 28th time, and it never fails to make me laugh so hard, that I almost hurl. The cast for this dynamic Trio is to die for, they couldn't have picked a better bunch! I give this movie the Big 2 thumbs up, with a bright and shiny 5 Star!!
January 22, 2017
Worst movie in the Hangover franchise. Not as funny and entertaining as the first two movies.
½ December 20, 2016
WHAT I LIKED: The Second Part to this franchise was just a rehashing of the first film, but here some originality is finally sought in the form of a new plot and character developments that tie back to the first film whilst bringing the franchise forward. 'The Hangover Part III' now feels fresh so the audience can really get down to enjoying the twists and turns (and the hilarity) of a gritty and honourable sequel.
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.
½ December 6, 2016
The Hangover Part III is an unnecessary sequel to an unnecessary sequel.

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.
½ November 25, 2016
About on par with the second Hangover. Funny, but obviously nothing tops the first.
November 10, 2016
I thought this film was the best out of all the hangover films
November 4, 2016
Good Wolfpack movie and much better than Part II.
October 27, 2016
Part 1 & 2 are waaaaay better!!!
½ October 25, 2016
The wolf pack is back and with no wedding or bachelor party, what could possibly go wrong?

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
September 23, 2016
Good fun. Why the low ratings? Lighten up people.
September 16, 2016
I would have preferred they did the same movie a third time in a row.
½ September 1, 2016
The Hangover III is directed and co-written by Todd Phillips, and it stars Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zack Galifianakis, Ken Jeong, and John Goodman in a comedy film about the Wolfpack going somewhere to help Alan (Zack Galifianakis) get better, but things get sudden when Marshall (John Goodman) found them and tells them to find Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) or Doug (Justin Bartha) gets killed. When I heard that the third one was going to be different in terms of plot from the previous films and it's also the last film, I was looking forward to see what they're going to bring, but man was this one bad. The acting is good, and John Goodman can act intimidating as a villain, even he was completely wasted in this as his character wasn't written well. Even though the plot is different, what they put in however, is a complete weak one that felt like it was stretched out. The humor in it wasn't funny, and I didn't laugh even once, which is sad as I found the previous films to be really funny. The movie feels lazy like it's not trying at times in terms of explaining things. Zack's character feels unpleasant as he gets very rude, which is not funny even though the movie said that he's off his medication which worked to its own disadvantage. The only time that I laughed, was the ending because it would've been a funnier set up than this plot, even if it's very similar. With all that said and done, I honestly didn't hate it as I still was abut interested in the film, even though the mystery of it is gone, there were some amusing moments in here, and Melissa McCarthy wasn't bad in it, heck, given with the right material, her character would've been very funny. Even though it's different from the other films, it does feel very pointless and is not a good ending point for the series that it might as well have the same plot as the previous films because at least it'll be funnier than what we got for this.
August 27, 2016
A kind of strange mix between an action film and a comedy, that is neither thrilling nor funny.
½ August 14, 2016
E?lenceli Ama Gereksiz!
(Tolunay Dereli)

Film önceki filmlere k?yasta çok farkl?, önceki filmlerde bekarl??a veda partileri vard?. Ben ilk filmi be?enmi?tim ama ikincisi gerçekten birinci filmin kopyas?yd?. Bu filmede umutlu girdim ve be?endim, be?endim be?enmesine de ne dü?man derinli?i, ne hikaye olu?umu aç?s?ndan yeterli de?ildi. Demek istedi?im o kadar basit bir olay örgüsüne sahipti ki, filmin para için çekildi?i anl?yorsununuz. Bunlar? bir kenara b?rak?rsak film gerçekten di?er filmlere k?yasta aksiyonu ve macera kurgusu çok iyi. Yani filmin içine girebiliyorsunuz, film her ne kadar iyi olsada basitti. Ben bu yüzden tepkiliyim, ne gerek vard? ki? Bak?n bu filmin ismi ''Felekten Bir Gece'', bu film ismi ile alakas? hiç yok. Film bildi?in intikam tarz? ve aksiyon birle?imi bir?ey olmu?, filmin tarz?n? de?i?tirmi?ler. Ama film ikinci filmden daha iyiydi, sadece konsepti de?i?mi?, ikinci film birinci filmin kopyas?yd? zaten izlerken s?k?lm??t?m. Bide neden hep Doug kaç?r?l?yor? Phil, Stu veya Alan neden de?il. Söyleyeyim mi? çünkü yap?mc? bu oyunculardan para kazand??? için bu kadar çok süre veriyor ve o karakteri filmde tutmaya özen gösteriyor. Alan'?n babas? öldü?ü zaman cenaze töreninde hiç kimse üzülmedi, ben buna bir eksi olarak yazar?m, tamam insanlar? güldürmek istiyorsunuz ama her sahnede komik olamaz. Adam?n babas? ölmü? selfie çekiyor nedir bu yha. Böyle saçmal?klar olmamas? laz?m, mesela ben Alan'?n yerinde olsayd?m a?lard?m. Ayr?ca Marshall karakterinin ne derinli?i var ne kurgusu saçma sapan karakterleri i?lemeden sokuyorlar. Yok Chow alt?n?m? çald?, alt?nlar?m? bana getirin size Doug vereyim bu nedir karde?im, siz kaç filmdir bu olay örgüsünü i?lediniz hiç mi b?kmad?n?z? Todd Philips'e çok sinirliyim bari yeni içerikler üretip bizlere sunsayd?n?z, her film birbirine benziyor olmaz böyle i?! Bu nas?l seneryo yazmak inan?n bilmiyorum. Filmi izlerken e?lendi?imi söyledim evet do?rudur, ama bu kötü oldu?u de?i?tirmez. Bence film çok basitti ve önceki filmlerin yapt??? hatalar? yapt???ndan dolay? puan?m dü?tü. Ayr?ca filmin ''Shawshank Redemption'' olan göndermesi unutmamak gerek :)

½ August 13, 2016
Should not have been made.
Page 2 of 274