The Hangover Part III

[LostSon88]

Yeah, Alan has entirely ceased to be likable. He is just awful.

He basically killed his father and wished his mother died first.

Mental illness or not, it's hard to like a guy like that.

 

[DyeLorean]

The decapitated giraffe wasn't funny at all. It was maybe a little bit amusing in the trailer when they didn't show anything, but seeing what it looked liked in the final film was disturbing.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I feel like the character of Alan was redeemed by the end of this movie. He did finally sorta grow up by the end. Thus redeeming him in someways. Because for some reason they made him a idiot *****ebag in part 2 and in 3 for a good chunk of the movie.

 

[MadVillainy]

Finally saw this.

Eh, I wouldnt say it's a horrible movie Honestly I feel like I can say that about the 2nd one too. But after the first one they just fall short. But I have to say this was the worst one just for the fact that it wasnt funny.

I think the humor from the series is from the crazy, humorous situations the characters get into and that was absent in this one. So instead of the humor coming from their reaction to all the hilariously, f***ed up stuff they do they rely on Alan and Chow. Chow actually wasnt terrible, I didnt laugh but he wasnt in it enough to annoy me. But I wanted Alan gone. He wasn't funny he was just a d***. And not a lovable idiot just a moron

I can at least give the movie credit becase the story/story idea of pulling off a heist/looking for Chow isnt bad, but it jsut wasnt executed right. At least in the 2nd one it was still fun for the most part. This one was just dreary which I dont think the franchise should be

And I didnt like the stinger that much.

3/10 (I give PArt II a 6/10, and Part I an 8/10)

 

[nite-owl]

The decapitated giraffe wasn't funny at all. It was maybe a little bit amusing in the trailer when they didn't show anything, but seeing what it looked liked in the final film was disturbing.

That bit reminded me of something out of Family Guy.

I thought is Seth Macfarlane going to come out of nowhere and start lecturing the audience on something.

 

[Two-Face]

Part 1 is my favourite. I can watched more than once, others not so much.

 

[Nathan]

I think Hangover 1 is brilliant. An instant classic. It's a movie that just doesn't get old or boring. No matter how often you watch it. In my very humble opinion at least. Hangover 2 doesn't even come close. And just from reading everyone's opinions, neither does Hangover 3.

 

[Octoberist]

The biggest mistake of the Hangover sequels is how Todd Phillips dropped the original screenwriters from the original film.

 

[Kane52630]

The stinger was like "oh was that what you liked from the first two? well I guess we can put it here."

 

[Nathan]

The biggest mistake of the Hangover sequels is how Todd Phillips dropped the original screenwriters from the original film.

Now that explains a lot.

 

[The Chris]

I remember hearing that their script was drastically different from what the movie ended up being
anyway for part 1. Gotta remember where I heard that.

 

[MadVillainy]

The biggest mistake of the Hangover sequels is how Todd Phillips dropped the original screenwriters from the original film.

Now that explains a lot.

I disagree.

Have you read their actual script for the Hangover? It's actually pretty bad.

It seems that Todd Phillips cleaned it up and made it the success it is today. Phil (named Vick in the original script) is actually a guy who is trying to con his friends out of their money so he can pay back Chow (named Jimmy Lang). Vick's personality is even more *****ey than Phil's. Alan has none of what made him funny in the first (which is kinda to be expected because Galifinakis brought his own thing to the role) and of course there was no tiger or Mike Tyson. It also had the moment that a lot of comedies have where the heroes need to learn a lesson and become even better friends even after f***ing each other over; which is something Im glad the first movie never had.

It's kind of like when you look at the movies that are advertised with "From the Writers of the Hangover" like 21 & Over and The Change Up theyre pretty sh**y movies

 

[Octoberist]

True.

Maybe the first Hangover was just a lightening in a bottle.

 

[MadVillainy]

Lightning in a bottle and due to the fact that they flanderized all the characters from normal guys into whiny babies (Stu), guys who are for the most part well meaning jerks into straight d*cks (Phil), and lovable idiots into psychopathic a**holes (Alan)

 

[terry78]

Most comedies nowadays have pretty much taken that template. One person is a major sociopath along with another who is forced into a partnership thing with them, then they get chewed out later for being such a dick or we learn why they're such a dick, then at the end they become buddies while the dick is still pretty dickish.

 

[Octoberist]

Unless its based around actor created characters or acts like the Three Stooges or the Marx Bros., I don't think comedies lend themselves week to sequels.

 

[MadVillainy]

I think the mistakes of the series are:

1. Not including Doug more in the sequels. I know some people think he wouldnt fit with The Wolfpack, but Justin Bartha is no slouch in the comedy department and I think adding a new character or at least trying it out wouldve changed things. I think they just needed to give him more of a personality
2. Making Part II almost beat for beat like Part I. I understand them using the plot of the guys blacking out again, but then just re-writing the baby into a monk, Chow's role in Part I being more or less played by Giamatti. It just was lazy
3. Making the third not much of a comedy. Nuff said

Unless its based around actor created characters or acts like the Three Stooges or the Marx Bros., I don't think comedies lend themselves week to sequels.

Yeah thats kinda true. Although I honestly do like Beverly Hills Cop II and Harold and Kumar II.

I hope 21 Jump Street 2 turns out good. That's my favorite comedy since Tropic Thunder.

 

[Lord]

Just watching this now, and when Chow betrayed them and locked them in the basement why the hell didn't they take the door down? It didn't look very strong, and if they didn't have the power in their legs to take it down they could have easily used that giant hammer! They took a wall down with that thing, i'm sure they would be able to break the door with the first swing.

 

[DyeLorean]

Watched Part III again and it got a little bit better in a second viewing. Is not as great as the first 2 (yes, I liked Part II) but at least it tried to do something different but trying to tie the other 2 movies. I think it needed a less cynical and dark script. There are a couple of good stuff in there, but it just wasn't enough.

 

[Kane52630]

edit.