The Hangover Part III

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The only question I have is that if you strongly dislike the first two movies, why comment on a thread full of people who have liked the first movie (and the few that like the second)? And if you say only to say voice your intense dislike for it, why even watch the trailer or have any interest when you "intensely dislike" it?

That really goes for all poster who hate the first two movies. Why post in a thread for the third one when you know you're going to hate it? It only causes problems.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Everyone has there own tastes but the first movie had humor / chemistry with the cast and at the time a new and clever premise. It wasn't like a stupid terrible comedy like the crappy spoof movies like Movie 43, Haunted House etc. Just dumbfounds me how anyone can think it was terrible but to each his own.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

The only question I have is that if you strongly dislike the first two movies, why comment on a thread full of people who have liked the first movie (and the few that like the second)? And if you say only to say voice your intense dislike for it, why even watch the trailer or have any interest when you "intensely dislike" it?

That really goes for all poster who hate the first two movies. Why post in a thread for the third one when you know you're going to hate it? It only causes problems.

I'm not here to blindly hate on it. I really wanted to like the first after all I heard, and hell even some parts did make me laugh (mainly Zach though), but they were few and far between, and then the second just ticked me off. I'm still hoping the third time is a charm, but it doesn't look like it, that's all. I'm not trolling, just stating an opinion.

 

[Nathan]

Just watched the Trailer. Didn't really get a reaction out of me at all, except for strongly disliking the part with the Giraffe. I loved the first movie, was disappointed by the 2nd, because it was more of the same and nowhere near as funny as the first. And this, I'm like whatever. I guess I'll watch it if I happen to catch it on TV.

 

[Figs]

The only question I have is that if you strongly dislike the first two movies, why comment on a thread full of people who have liked the first movie (and the few that like the second)? And if you say only to say voice your intense dislike for it, why even watch the trailer or have any interest when you "intensely dislike" it?

That really goes for all poster who hate the first two movies. Why post in a thread for the third one when you know you're going to hate it? It only causes problems.

Parker, you should know this by now. This is the internet, where people who think their opinions are special and need to be heard by all, come to ***** about everything.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I know.

I'm not here to blindly hate on it. I really wanted to like the first after all I heard, and hell even some parts did make me laugh (mainly Zach though), but they were few and far between, and then the second just ticked me off. I'm still hoping the third time is a charm, but it doesn't look like it, that's all. I'm not trolling, just stating an opinion.

I wasn't calling it trolling. Don't get me wrong, I just feel as though if people aren't fans of a series, a third movie most likely won't change your opinion.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Fair enough. But I'm willing to give anything a shot.

Well, almost anything.

 

[TheVileOne]

The first movie worked because it was Vegas and the absurdity worked. Also it wasn't as mean spirited.

The second movie just made absolutely no sense based on the first one.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree.

As I said before with Hangover II, my biggest problem wasn't that it was the same (Home Alone 2 was the same and I love it), but the fact it was a more mean spirited and cynical. In the second one, one got shot, another got sodomized, and one lost a finger that was important to their career and hobbies, and worse enough, they find it okay.

 

[Ajendo]

The first movie worked because it was Vegas and the absurdity worked. Also it wasn't as mean spirited.

The second movie just made absolutely no sense based on the first one.

This.

 

[The Guard]

What does that mean, exactly?

That it made no sense?

 

[TheVileOne]

I agree.

As I said before with Hangover II, my biggest problem wasn't that it was the same (Home Alone 2 was the same and I love it), but the fact it was a more mean spirited and cynical. In the second one, one got shot, another got sodomized, and one lost a finger that was important to their career and hobbies, and worse enough, they find it okay.

Yes. The first movie is like one of those crazy stories you hope you get tell someday and maybe remember fondly when thinking about it later. Like a crazy night out with your friends and clearly exaggerated for the sake of narrative film. No one really got seriously hurt or came out of the first one really bad. Even the father wasn't even upset. Because the dad knew, "It's vegas," like "Yup, its Vegas what can you do. Glad you guys had a good time, sure as **** wish I could've been there."

OK so then Ed Helms gets freaking sodomized by a transvestite the day before his wedding?! Seriously WTF?! Not only that, his freaking wife is just standing there smiling at the vague mentions of his being sodomized and violated and having someone else's bodily fluids inside him. Seriously, how can she just stand there and smile through all that?! At least Justin Bartha's wife was like, "OK -- what the hell happened and why are you sun burnt as hell?"

The only explanation I would've found acceptable is if the little brother was behind it. That would've actually made sense.

 

[the last son]

Not going to even watch the trailer. Some things need to just end. I liked the first one but didn't enjoy the second so ill pass this time around

 

[LostSon88]

First one was one is easily one of my favorite comedies. It was just so over the top crazy it was hilarious.

The second one disappointed me for as previously mentioned by others, it was essentially the EXACT same movie only much darker and twisted. I mean, really, it was THAT necessary to have Alan be the one to roofie them AGAIN?

There was nothing creative about the 2nd one. Add Doug into the mix, use another plot device by having them be the hunted instead of searching for someone else, have Teddy be the one responsible for drugging them. There were tons of routes they could have gone to build upon the first.

Instead? They do the exact same thing. Down to Phil calling up Doug's wife on the phone...

Just plain lazy.

And on to my second part, it was wayyy to dark. I don't see why they felt they had to go that route. I remember being in the theater for the midnight show and the crowd not really LOL'ing as they were cringing at what was going on. The 2nd one wasn't a "fun" movie to watch.

With the 3rd? After seeing the trailer, it looks interesting. I can't see it going as dark as the last one but there was a shot in the trailer of someone getting shot and falling into a pool.

I'll likely to still see it but i'm very 'meh' towards it.

 

[Smallville13]

To be honest the thing that makes Part 2 the hardest for me to watch is what happened to the stunt man during the filming of the car chase. The darker tone was actually somewhat inspired. I know it's just a comedy, but if handled well it could've been interesting to explore the darker spots of human nature and depravity under the influence of alcohol.

The first one is really fun though. Even my folks enjoyed it one night and they usually hate crude humor.

So is the new one just Vegas again? I thought I read ages ago that it was set in a new city again?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I believe Vegas is only part of it.

If handled well, it probably could have but the problem is that the darker tone was completely played for laughs and not any character development or thematic purpose.

 

[Donnie Darko]

Anyone that thought the first hangover movie was terrible must not have a sense of humor and/ or have no soul, or don't like comedy movies. I don't know a single person who didn't laugh their butts off when they first saw Hangover 1. Even my movie snobb friends like the first movie.

I pretty much agree with this.

 

[DyeLorean]

I don't think there's nothing wrong with a little dark humor. Is just a movie. I enjoyed Part II as much as Part I, even with the same plot device. It was still 10x better than most comedies lately. I know I'm in the minority, though.

 

[roach]

I believe Vegas is only part of it.

If handled well, it probably could have but the problem is that the darker tone was completely played for laughs and not any character development or thematic purpose.

If this was Star Wars Vegas would be Yavin 4.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I don't think there's nothing wrong with a little dark humor. Is just a movie. I enjoyed Part II as much as Part I, even with the same plot device. It was still 10x better than most comedies lately. I know I'm in the minority, though.

There isn't, but it was handled terribly.

 

[Project862006]

 

[Drizzle]

Since John Goodman is in it, that means this will win Best Picture at next year's Oscars.

 

[Kane52630]

John Goodman = my ticket is sold.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

This film just looks flat out awful to me, nothing about the trailer made me care to see this film at all. The second film was a stretch as it was, this is just going to far.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

John goodman instantly elevates whatever he's in, I may see this.