After leaving the theater from seeing The Hangover Part III, one major question swept my mind: what was the point? Sure the movie got a few chuckles out of me, but definitely not enough for a full feature length film. In fact, the film didn't even feel like a full-length sequel, but rather some cheap knockoff—ultimately coming off as hollow, stale, and worst of all, boring.
Now the original Hangover was a funny film—I know it and you know it (unless you didn't like it, in which case you probably don't care to see this one either). It was unique for its formula, energy, dark comedy, and overall raunchiness. The Hangover Part II tried to up the ante by increasing the raunchiness and shock value (which believe me…it did), but ultimately failed by completely (and I mean completely) reusing the first’s plot, jokes, and characters—resulting in a stale repeat of what had already been done.
This is where I give Part III some credit as it not only came up with a new plot, but added a fresh new face in the form of John Goodman (who I swear has been in everything lately). [Update: I completely forgot that they had Paul Giamatti appear in The Hangover Part II, but to my credit, it really wasn’t a memorable role] The plot goes that Alan’s (Zach Galifianakis) father has just died, and in an effort to help rehabilitate him, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) take the off-his-medications Alan to a rehab center. They are stopped, however, by boss criminal Marshall (John Goodman) who has been robbed $21 million by Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who’s only recent contact has been with Alan. Marshall kidnaps Doug (yeah, not all the plot is original) as a hostage until the wolf pack can find and bring Chow back to him.
What makes Part III such a boring film is its extreme level of seriousness overtakes most of the jokes and energy that made the first one good. Most events that take place act less like something from a comedy and more like something you’d see in a film directed by Clint Eastwood. All the characters (even Alan at times) act way too serious, never allowing the comedy to sink in. For example, during the scene where Doug is taken hostage, Alan asks Marshall to take Stu instead. This could have been a funny joke, but the film gives little time in-between the shots of Doug being taken and Alan's request to create a necessary buildup pause before the punch line—making the joke more serious than it should be. Directly after Alan asks, Stu immediately responses with “F@#k you Alan”, followed by the scene cutting to an overview that both looks grim and has grim music playing. Both the joke’s buildup and comedic relief (of an already dramatic scene) are taken away by the quick editing and grim setting placed upon it.
The bleakest part of the movie, however, is the wolf pack themselves. The characters have lost both their charm and personality originally possessed in the first—instead, acting out the motions like hollow shells of their former selves. In fact, out of all the wolf pack, only Alan gets some development as a character (though it’s really slim and doesn't quite add up in the end). Both Stu and Phil seem more like backdrops in the film, with no other use but to act as the straight men: pointing out the screwball antics of the other characters. Doug, as usual, is simply there to be used as a hostage and once again gets little screentime (by now I just feel bad for actor Justin Bartha, who possesses some talent but is only used as a plot device). I actually remember caring about these characters and their mission to find and get Doug back to his wedding on time, yet here’s Doug with his life on the line and I’m more interested in how many pretzels I have left for my cheese dip.
The best thing about Part III film is John Goodman, who gives a fun performance and actually carries out some of the best jokes. However, I find I cannot count this as an overall positive for the film, as John Goodman has never given me a performance I did not enjoy in some way. Combine this with the fact that I've seen over two dozen films with him, and I figured there was a 99% guarantee that his performance would be no less likable here in Part III—and, as such, should not count as a positive for seeing the film as it was already guaranteed to happen.
So do I think The Hangover Part III is worse than The Hangover Part II? No, I do not. Do I think it’s a bad film? Mhhh…no, I wouldn't say I hated it or anything, but I also think it’s not good either. My overall opinion is that it’s just bland. It’s a lifeless, unsatisfying ending to a trilogy that started off good and went downhill. It’s not really funny, the raunchiness is nothing I haven’t seen before, and the main characters are all cardboard. And while there’s no harm in seeing it, The Hangover Part III will bring no satisfaction either.
