“ Actors: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Heather Graham / Director: Todd Phillips / Studio: Warner Home Video „
I wasn't sure quite how much I was looking forward to seeing the third instalment of The Hangover, given as that the first was pretty good and the second was pretty average. As I had expected, this seemed to add nothing new; whilst some aspects were amusing, I didn't find myself laughing all that much and by the end I was left feeling disappointed that it was so bland and unoriginal.
This was directed by Todd Phillips, the same guy who directed the first two Hangover flicks. It falls within the comedy genre and follows the same path as it's earlier instalments in terms of characters and rough premise. We're introduced, again, to the 'Wolfpack', the four friends who have grown and gone on their own paths since we first met them in the first film. Not all that much has really changed, however, with Alan still living like a teenager. His family and the other three members of the Wolfpack stage an intervention to get Alan's life back on track and sort out what they think are mental health issues. On the way, however, Doug gets kidnapped by the big bad Marshall. This is the same guy that always seems to disappear, as if they couldn't afford to pay him his fees for these films so they just roll him in at the start, take him away, and bring him back just before the closing credits. It turns out that what happened in the earlier films hasn't quite gone away and that Mr Chow is still in their lives causing problems. To get Doug back from his captors, Alan, Phil and Stu must track down Mr Chow, who has Marshall's gold, and they've not got long to do it.
It's the same sort of romp we're used to so the rest of the film basically follows the path of these guys going on an adventure to Vegas and who knows where on a mission to hunt the elusive and mischievous Mr Chow. These guys aren't the brightest but together they form an almost superhero style gang; Alan's ability in stare-off competitions, Stu's dentist/doctor confidence that starts to come out, and Phil's creative ideas all make up for the lack of brain cells in each of them. So, nothing noteworthy really in terms of the premise.
With regards to the humour, I didn't find this particularly laugh-out-loud. There were a few moments of sarcasm or silly jokes that were amusing, but there wasn't really anything that I can recall as being particularly original or side-splitting. The film on the whole has the feel to it of reheated bacon. Bacon is lovely when freshly cooked and you always want a bacon sandwich after you smell bacon, but when it's recooked or microwaved in a cheap pub restaurant it's really not so appealing.
The only thing that really kept it watchable to me was Mr Chow, as a character that I find quite cute and comical despite him not offering anything new this time around. Whilst the other characters offered a reassuring sense of familiarity, I did find myself becoming a little bored of them because they seemed quite bland for the most part. The cast included all those you'd expect, such as Zach Galifianakis (Alan), Bradley Cooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu), Ken Jeong (Mr Chow) and John Goodman (Marshall). I did, however, quite like the inclusion of a few other characters, like Melissa McCarthy as Cassie, because this introduced something a bit different.
The film still had a good quality feel to it and you could tell that money and time was invested in to the scenes, which you'd expect with a film they had hoped would be a blockbuster. Unfortunately, it's all been done before and if like me you enjoyed the originality and laughs provided by the first Hangover, you will likely find this to be rather disappointing.
DVD released 2013, running time 96 minutes, rated Certificate 15.
Selling on Amazon for £9.99.
HANGOVER 3 (FILM ONLY REVIEW)
I watched the Hangover part 3 as I really enjoyed the previous two installments. This being billed as the final part of the series, it was something I couldn't wait to see. I would actually describe the first Hangover film as one of my all time favourites, just to put it into context.
Before I give a brief description of the plot, I will point out that I feel it is necessary to view the first two films from the Hangover trilogy before watching this final film. I feel that the storyline is not explained in enough detail at the beginning of this film and even I, having watched Hangovers 1 and 2 a few times, did get lost in places at the start as the storyline heavily relies on the viewer having a detailed knowledge to a lot of the background concerning previous encounters seen in those films. From this, my plot description may not make too much sense if you've not watched the first two films of the series.
The story follows four guys - Stu, Phil, Alan and Doug who all appear in each of the three films. Alan's family are concerned about him, especially after losing his Dad and want him to attend a support group some distance away. As his friends, they all embark on a trip to take him there. On the way however, they are pushed off the road by a mob leader called Marshall (familiar to them from the previous films) and because of a previous bad encounter, he sets the group a hard task to try to locate an old friend (and dangerous gangster) Mr Chow who has stolen many millions worth of gold bullion belonging to him. The film follows the twists and turns of the groups struggle to locate Mr Chow trying to find and bring him and the gold back - if they don't succeed, then there will be serious consequences.
I watched this film with an open mind, even though I had read several reviews beforehand that were lukewarm. I have to agree that I was left a little disappointed with this final installment. I was unaware of any of the plot details before watching, but the first thing that immediately sprung to mind was the lack of the aftermath of a hangover in the same manner as the first two films. In fact, to me the title of the film makes no sense whatsoever in comparison to the plot. In one way, this was refreshing as I remember when I watched the second installment, I thought that the idea had already been used and explored in the first film, but equally I also felt that because it was the natural path for this one to take given that it was the concept of those first two.
The beginning is very strange and although it has a loose link to the film's plot, I didn't feel it was entirely necessary. I felt that it took a good fifteen minutes to get started at all. It was a slow start and far different from what had previously been seen.
I didn't feel a laugh a minute with this film. There were no overly crazy ideas and laugh out loud moments at some ludicrous and far-fetched happenings as there was with the first two films either - I felt as though I was sat waiting for these and they never came. Before I knew it, we were at the end of the film and I was left feeling disappointed as I'd expected it to be such a laughter filled film. There were some scenes that were funny don't get me wrong, but definitely nowhere near the amount or level of comedy that had been seen previously.
The storyline was average really too - it was hard to follow in some places and that's why I would definitely recommend watching the first two films before seeing this if you've not done already. It was as well executed as I think it could have been, but I think the overall storyline could have been so much stronger than it was. The feeling I got was that the film had been made partly because fans of the previous two had waited for a third one and been eagerly anticipating it. Leading on from that, I felt it was a little rushed really in places and no real attempt had been made to include real belly laughter moments, which is what I feel most (if not all) Hangover film fans enjoyed the most about the first two films. I think anti-climax describes the feelings on this perfectly!
Whether making the film a little more serious was intentional by the writers I'm not sure, although I know there were a couple of scenes that I felt were supposed to be funny but I didn't find all that comical and neither did my husband. I remember during the first two films we were in stitches at some of the happenings - this time that didn't happen once.
I think the overall feeling is flat - it kept me watching but not entertained if that makes sense.
My only saving point is that I felt that some loose ends with some of the characters were tied up a little in this film, again leading on from occurrences the first two films and that was something I felt was appropriate.
I'm afraid to say that I feel this was an average film. It certainly won't be one that I'll watch time and again as I do with the other two in the Hangover series. I can't actually see me watching it again, at least not any time soon anyway. I've rated it two stars which I feel is a fair rating taking everything into account. It was just average - so much more could have been made from it and so many more laugh out loud moments could have been had.
Running time: 96 minutes
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Heather Graham, John Goodman
Rating: 15 years +
Thanks for reading :o)
Released on 23rd May 2013.
This is the third film in the Hangover franchise and filmed in L.A, Las Vegas and Tirana. Chow who is a cocaine fiend escapes from a high security prison and the three friends Phil, Stu and Doug decide to get Allen the help he needs as he still lives at home and acts like a 10 year old. So on the way, they are attached by Marshall played by John Goodman because Chow once stole his gold. Doug is held hostage until the remaining three pals go to Vegas and track him down. Amused yet? No neither was I.
The Hangover film, part 1 was the funniest film in a long time and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was the combination of the witty one liners, the daftness and the humorous side splitting scenes. It was and still remains one of those films you can watch over and over again. I think having the film set in Vegas was a big appeal for me and I enjoyed seeing the setting as I have been to Las Vegas a couple of times and I love it. The second film was rather disappointing, rather than maintaining the astute comedy moments, the film seemed rather childish and more aimed at teenage boys. It was actually quite cringe worthy at times. This film was set in Bangkok and it made the sky bar a big tourist attraction. The film did have some funny moments but on the whole it was a let down for me. So this leads me on to the third film. If you have a partner/boyfriend/husband who still thinks he is a teenager then he will be dragging his Mrs to see this with him; the typical lads film. I was looking forward to seeing this though in the hopes they can salvage something as the characters are worth watching and very likeable. My boyfriend and I went to the cinema to see this film and we sat munching popcorn waiting for it to start. So was it a success?
==The film: thumbs up or down==
The first half of the film is funny and I thought to myself, 'here we go, this is more like it!' I can recall laughing out loud at certain scenes. Some of the scenes are advertised as little teasers in the trailer but when you see them in the film, you will be laughing out out. I was definitely impressed at the beginning of the film. The film relies on Allen who is my favourite character at the beginning and the jokes were a laugh a minute. The film then takes a turn and the amount of jokes takes a downward turn. The film then changes in to a sort of action film but it just doesn't cut it. The pace is slow and although there are some comedy moments, these are sporadic and far between; I was rather bored during the second half and I was just waiting for the film to end. The plot is straight forward but it just does not flow and the tense moments are bland and boring. The actors even seem to give up and the whole muddle of comedy/thriller just does not do it for anyone. There are some quite sinister moments but for me these dark twists are nothing but cries for attention. It is really quite dire how the actors shift from funny to serious and although I do love a good action film; they just have not got it quite right here. The film is written by Todd Phillips who also penned the second movie. The film did not get the best write up so maybe Philips decided to change tact. Philips did not write the first movie and only directed it. He did get some marvellous cinematic comedy moments from the actors but the jokes were obviously down to the original writers. Philips cannot do comedy, hence the childishness of the second film so maybe he thought action movies were his bag and changed tact for this film. Well Mr Philips, it did not work, I was very bored.
The characters are good and there is some great performances and I was pleased to see Allen take more of a leading role and the trio taking a step back. Galifianakis is outstanding as Allen and if anything the saving grace of the film. His character is developed and manipulated, adapting to the changing tones of the film well. Another character, Stu played by Helms is developed and rather than given a tough time and bullied, we get to see a bit more from him. I was disappointed not to see more of Phil as this character gave a really sterling performance in the last two movies and provided some cracking one liners. He seems left out of this movie for some reason. I mean, there are some brilliant cameos in the film but I wanted to see it for the boys! I was surprised to see a very mediocre effort from the legendary John Goodman who seemed to be only there to move the plot along and his usual comic genius was far from forthcoming. Chow is definitely overused in this film and it annoys me as his jokes are recycled and his one dimensional character grows very tiresome after a while.
I would not recommend this film to anyone. If you have seen the first movie then you will be disappointed with this film as the jokes are not as good and the whole film changes pace. If you have seen both movies and were hoping for a film similar to the first then the first half of this may lull you into a false allusion. If you have seen none of the Hangover franchise then you are in for a drab time, a poor plot with jokes that dry up towards the end. Rather than being sat on the edge of your seat in suspense or rolling on the floor laughing, you are slipping out of your chair sleeping!
Despite what the title may suggest, there is no memory loss, alcohol, or any missed weddings and concerned family members involved in the Wolfpack's third and hopefully final outing to the big screen. The first "Hangover" was such a filthy, engaging comic delight (it was nominated for a BAFTA and was chosen as one of American Film Institute's top 10 films of that year) that it just had to be hacked up, ruined and squeezed for every penny in its dull sequel "The Hangover Part 2". Here comes the equally unnecessary and tedious "Part 3", a film that tries to recapture its glory days by utilising the funnier characters only to end up completely wasting everyone's talents. So long gone are the gaps in their memories, no sense of mystery, and with a completely new structure it's clear they wanted to go out with a bang.
What made the first entry so special is no more - what starts off as a potentially engaging set-up (the Wolfpack gets kidnapped by a ruthless gangster boss) quickly fizzles out as quite simply, nothing funny actually happens. After Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) steals a lot of expensive gold from Marshall (John Goodman), the Wolfpack is blackmailed to deliver Mr Chow as well as the stolen gold. Doug (Justin Bartha) is held hostage as the rest of the clueless gang consisting of Phil (Bradley Cooper) Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) go about completing this seemingly impossible task.
Very little has changed in terms of the characters. Doug once again ends up doing next to nothing as the captured hostage, Phil and Stu think they're clever coming up with action plans when they're really not (Phil especially remains as hateful as ever thinking he's the "cool" one), and a lot of comedy hinges on Galifianakis and his performance. But his awkward, superior attitude is far too self-satisfied to truly amuse and he barely has any recognisable hits when it comes to delivering the gags. The unfortunate events that unfold after he buys himself a giraffe in the beginning marks a relative high, but then it's all downhill from there. Even with "Part 2", any scene that involved the actor opening his mouth marked the film digging itself further into the ground - the same principle applies here. He is so disappointing in fact, that only with some firm support from a cameo appearance of Melissa McCarthy, on a comedy career high thanks to the massive success of "Bridesmaids" and her hit sitcom "Mike & Molly", makes him shine. McCarthy, clearly highly sought-after following her Oscar nominated stint in "Bridesmaids" doesn't disappoint even in her brief moment of chipping in to help generate the laughs.
Establishing links between this and the franchises starter is Jade (Heather Graham) the ex-stripper they met in Vegas, and remember the baby they got stuck with in the first film? Well he's grown up a bit now, which gives Alan the chance to "bond" with the poor child and therefore put his own daddy issues to rest. You see, Alan's father suddenly passes in the beginning and in the heavily promoted trailer in which he sings Ave Maria and makes a reasonably funny eulogy, we find that his father was never the fully embracing kind. (But to be fair, with someone like Alan, who would fully approve of this lazy spoiled waster with absolutely nothing positive on his character trait?) Once again Alan is involved in one of his long, awkward sequences in which he sorts out his feelings, becoming a father figure himself of some sorts to the now-grown child. The point of this scene? Difficult to say. What it achieves however is it makes Alan all the more unlikeable, which you wouldn't have thought was ever possible. But hey, director Todd Phillips has truly outdone himself in that area.
Trying to salvage what little credibility they have in the franchise, director Phillips decides to bring back Jeong in a more prominent role than ever before. But his tiresome focus on the supposedly funny Asian accent and the outrageous, ridiculous things Chao says, is not enough to carry this film on its own. Before you know it, the writers have all but run out of things for Chao to do, and he's blurting out meaningless lines such as "I love cocaine" which is only one example of endless dumb lines that keep on coming. He's a crazy "China-man" whose obsession with sex, drugs, and violence is supposed to be funny. It certainly was, a couple of films ago, when he leapt out of the trunk naked, but now he's become a parody of himself, an unfunny one at that.
After a needlessly convoluted set of plot developments takes the gang to Tijuana, Mexico, it takes them even longer to land them back in Vegas, where their troubles all first started. Although promising a climax of an impressive scale, things don't improve at all, which is why it's wise for them to not stick around for so long. After everything's sorted and the mess handled in the most anti-climatic method imaginable, the characters are in a hurry to get back home away from all the insanity. And chances are, you as the audience will probably be feeling the exact same thing, after enduring more than an hour of this comedy dud.
Here is a film that makes the mistake of thinking it's better than everything and everyone else. It thinks it to be the cleverest, most daring film out there - and whatever delusional bubble the writers, director, and cast live in, they seem to be under the impression that this thoroughly misguided notion of "lads on tour" is actually fun. Star power is never enough for a comedy, as is shown clearly with this final entry. Do yourself a favour and give this one a miss. Pretend this didn't happen and whilst you're at it, why not pretend "Part II" doesn't exist either? "The (original) Hangover" is good enough to stand on its own two feet, and doesn't deserve the damage in reputation the next two films undoubtedly inflicted on it.
I had seen The Hangover just once not long after it was first released and thought that it was a funny film. Part two seemed to pass me by although I wanted to see it I just never got the time and so when I was asked did I want to go on a date to the cinema to see The Hangover part three I was a little dubious worrying would I have needed to have seen part two to really get in to the film but thankfully I didn't and this is my review of the film!
Following the death of Alan's father his family decide that an intervention needs to take place to get Alan the medical help he needs for his mental issues. They think that they only way that Alan will consider this intervention is if the rest of the wolf pack, being Doug, Stu, and Phil are there to talk him in to it and to basically make it in to a bit of a road trip which of course is likely to spark some fond memories for Alan whom the chaos of the previous road trips are all about fun and bonding with his friends. When Alan agrees to seek help the men all set off on a trip but are ran off the road by an angry gangster who is looking for Leslie Chow who stole masses of gold bars from him and whom had recently escaped prison and has been in contact with Alan. He takes Doug hostage and instructs the others to find Chow and the gold bars or lose Doug forever and so the men must embark upon another road trip faced with many challenges to try and protect their friend....unfortuntately for them the road leads back to Vegas where they vowed never to visit again!
From the very start of this franchise of films I think it was clear that the bulk of the comedy came from Alan who is played by Zach Galifianakis who I haven't come across in other films and so for me he is just Alan from The Hangover. When this film began I was again aware that there were going to be many comedy moments centred around Alan including a traumatic experience with a giraffe, his general behaviour towards his parents and family as a fully grown man and his performance at the funeral of his father just to name a few. I was actually laughing out loud very quickly in to this movie and I just loved Alan's speech at his father's funeral where he comments there were many people he would have preferred died first, including his mother. I love how simple Alan is and how he just says and does the most socially unacceptable things but is deep down a really quite vulnerable character who is looking for love! I loved when Alan was able to be reunited with the baby from the first film who is obviously not so small anymore! Alan and the child seem to be on similar levels and it is a cute little scene to watch.
The other members of the wolf pack are Doug (Justin Bartha), Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms). We don't see very much of Doug at all in this movie as he is taken hostage early on and I would suggest this may be because of the four he is the most bland character. Stu tries his best to be a responsible person and is always quoting that he is a "Doctor" and being told he is in fact a dentist and his reaction to this and other stressful situations make him amusing to watch. His relationship with Alan is amusing as it is clear he is Alan's least favourite and Stu kind of just has to put up with that. Without a shadow of a doubt Phil is Alan's most favourite friend and I would even say he was his idol! Phil is your typical man who doesn't really want to grow up and seems to enjoy playing up a bit which makes Alan love him and which makes him a more interesting character on the screen too. All of the men play their role really well and make believable characters and as such you can actually imagine some of the things that go on actually happening to people you know! I think they seem very settled in their roles as well and that they seem to get on well so it flows really well on screen.
One of the best characters in the film is Leslie Chow played by Ken Jeong and he is so amusingly camp that he makes me laugh just by being on the screen. His little sayings where he is more often that not swearing or insulting someone are comical and he is particularly funny when with Alan as it is a partnership that seems to work well on the big screen.
I can honestly say that although this is perhaps a non essential film only made for the fact that it will draw in crowds and do well at the box office that it is actually an enjoyable film to watch! If you are going in to the film looking for a light hearted comedy which is going to make you laugh you will not be disappointed with this film. There are some elements of course which work better than others and some of the elements that were meant to be funny left me a bit cold but there were plenty of other laugh out loud moments in the film to make up for it! We went to see the film on the second day of release and the cinema screen was quite busy and people all around were laughing hard at the same parts of the film so they have clearly done something right! If you are easily offended I would avoid this movie though as there are some parts of it which are a little close to the edge and could be offensive to some.
It was nice to see the wolf pack back in Vegas too. I have since seen The Hangover part two and I wasn't just as impressed by this one as I was by parts one and three and I think this was probably down to the fact that it was out of Vegas. In this one I loved how we could see Stu face some demons from the last visit and see Alan make new friendships as well. The film ended on a real high and I would hope that they leave it there but they did leave it open to potentially make some more films but I am not sure they should as there is only so much trouble four normal guys can get in to really!
Visually you can tell this is a high budget film and it was really well done. The screens were bright and didn't move too fast but once in Vegas you could feel as though you were almost there with them as all the lights were so bright. The whole film flowed well too and there wasn't any point in the 100 minutes it was on that I felt as though I was a bit bored as there was always plenty going on with the men searching for Chow. It was quite a fast paced film and didn't really feel as though it was on all that long! I do think that this is probably not quite as good as the first film where it was all quite new but I do certainly prefer this to part two. There is plenty of action within this film and I think that is another reason that I really enjoyed it...don't expect Rambo style action but add some comedy to some action and you get an enjoyable film, at least for me anyway.
I would certainly recommend going to see this film at the cinema or on DVD when it comes out if you aren't all that desperate to give it a watch. It is a funny film with plenty going on and I think personally it ends the saga of the wolf pack on a real high! I have no real complaints from watching this film and will buy it on DVD when it does come out to complete The Hangover trilogy.
Thank you for reading my review!
My husband and I have watched both of the Hangover movies in the cinema. While they are films of his choice of film I do find them enjoyable at times as I like a good comedy, so when part 3 came out we decided we would go to see it at the cinema.
The wolf pack is reunited when Alan's father passes away. Alan's family have decided that he needs help with his mental health issue, so form an intervention, and decide he would react better with the support of his old friends. After Alan agrees to go to the hospital the gang find themselves in trouble when their car is knocked off the road on the way to the hospital. Of course there is a reason for this and it is bound to lead to Alan. With Doug taken hostage the only way to keep him alive is swap Mr Chow (from previous films) for their friend back. With the wolf pack back together nothing will come easily, and they face the usual how did that happen situations.
One thing I noticed about the plot is that it all relates around Alan. While I enjoyed his character in the other films, I do find that his character is best in small doses. The crude and sometimes cringe worthy humour becomes boring quickly, and I was worried about him being one of the main characters. Again the second main character in the film is Mr Chow. I also found his character to be over whelming in other films, so again I was wondering how they would rely on these two for mains. I do think that two of the characters really carry the film humour wise. While some of it is just immature, as usual there are a few one liner and situations that really had my laughing. Unfortunately for the main of the film, the jokes are overused and as usual I find the character better in small amounts, and some of the material just fell short. There were other times I was really laughing, but the comedy side seems to be left behind a little in favour of more of a plot.
The acting is fine but nothing special. The performances are not amazing, but they manage to remain in character and remind you of the humour of the first film. It is light hearted comedy that still manages to raise a few giggles, but as with the other films there are parts of humour that just pass me by. Doug (Justin Bartha) is taken hostage early on in the film so his role is minimal. Other than Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) this only leaves Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms) to add a little something extra to the film. They both have their usual charisma, but I just think they could have been given more of a role in the film. It felt like they were supporting actors rather than main characters as they have been in previous films.
As no one is drunk this time you would think the craziness would be at a minimum. They find plenty of opportunities to throw in crazy situations, and they are very attention grabbing. The humour again relied mainly on the stars being drunk in the other films, but they still manage to provide laughs without any of the characters being intoxicated. As usual Phil is the cause of a number of the jokes. The whole film has a more grown up feel to it, and the ending does tie up a lot of loose ends. It certainly feels like the ending to the franchise, so I can only hope that it really is. The plot is predictable but it has enough to keep you interested. The action scenes and daft stunts are all well done as with all the films, but it can feel a little bit repetitive.
Again some of the sets and scenery are interesting and although they do end up back in Vegas there is a little variation at the beginning of the film. I do think it turned a little away from being a fun comedy into an action film which was disappointing. While the action added a little something to the film, I went into the cinema expecting a comedy so I was shocked at the somewhat more serious plot. The plot is over used and not anything special but you can tell they have tried to concentrate on the plot of the film in the long run. That is what I loved about the first movie it was so daft it was ridiculous but somehow it worked. This film just feels a little over thought which denies the movie the originality the first film managed to provide.
I would recommend this film for a light watch when you are in the mood for some silly humour. It is nowhere near as good as the first, but I did find it to be an improvement on the second. While it sounds like a lot of negative points in my review I did enjoy watching the film. It was perfect for a night to the cinema with a few laughs along the way, and I wouldn't say it was a complete waste of time. While it is not something I would recommend rushing out to see, if you are a fan of the franchise you are sure to be happy to see the old gang reunited. I just wish film makers would know when to stop at a good film rather than dragging it out to make as much money as possible.
More Wolf Pack Trouble
The supposedly final chapter to the hangover trilogy promises to break the formula from the first two films. The second film was almost a carbon copy of the first film. They say "if it aint broke don't fix it", well film makers should at least mix it up a bit and that's what they have done here.
This time the wolf pack as they are known are conducting an intervention with odd ball Alan but of course things don't quite go to plan.
Plot wise this is certainly head and shoulders over the last film, it's not going to be taxing your brain but that's a good thing here. There aren't as many laugh out loud moments as the first film but there are still enough to carry it through. I never got bored.
The whole cast have returned here and there are a few new faces too, and some old ones from the first film. The real star of the show is Zack Galifianakis (what a surname) who plays the oddball Alan, he gets all the best lines. The others are almost just supporting actors.
Comedian Ken Jeong returns as the unpredictable Lesley Chow. After Zack has the best comedy moments, I like the way they make him hard to read, is he good or bad? I think a bit of both but good hearted really.
Bradley Cooper is easy on the eye for the girls and puts in a good performance. It's good to see he still does comedy rolls now considering how big he has now become.
Melissa McCarthy, who is new to me, has a small but memorable part as a bizarre love interest. She play the part very well. It's a nice diversion from the main plot too.
Soundtrack wise this is pretty much standard fare. There is a salute to the first film musically over the end credits.
As promised the film does break with the formula of the first films while still keeping the premise of three guys getting into trouble. The comedy performances are all good, especially Galifianakis and Jeong. There's a good enough plot to carry it all off.
There are some scenes that could be considered tasteless, however I think that considering the previous form of these films they are to be expected.
This is not in the same league as the first Hangover film, but as a fun couple of hours it works. Hopefully this will be the last one as any more would really be pushing it too far. It's not a film I'd want to keep but will be looking out for when it comes onto TV.
After the credits start to roll there is an extra scene that is actually worth waiting for. It's not right at the end so it's not too bad.
Main Cast List
Bradley Cooper - Phil
Ed Helms - Stu
Zach Galifianakis - Alan
John Goodman - Marshall
Ken Jeong - Chow
Melissa McCarthy- Cassie
Directed By: Todd Phillips
Running Time: 100 mins
After finding out that the last instalment of the Hangover makes its way back to its roots in Las Vegas, we couldn't wait to see it as we have recently been. After watching it on Monday, I wasn't initially sure if I loved it or thought it was just okay. I've made my mind up now so here's the review!
The 'Wolfpack' are back, but this time the road trip isn't a pilgrimage to drink or women, its one to take Alan to be treated for his mental health issues and bizarre behaviour. But, this is the Wolfpack we are talking about and nothing ever goes to plan. Along the way they find themselves in a whole heap of trouble and they must work together to try and find a way out of the trouble they've found themselves in.
The characters are what make this film. Alan is awkward and annoying and socially unacceptable, but he is what makes the film. The whole film centres around him and his eccentricity, while the rest of the gang work together to try and make up for Alans behaviour. Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms play second fiddle to Zach Galifianakis (Alan), however they are just as brilliant. Stu (Ed Helms) was left with his infamous face tattoo in the second instalment and he is just as unfortunate in this episode, adding to one of the funniest scenes in a movie that I have ever seen (this scene is actually after the credits so do stay a few minutes behind), which saw me crying my eyes out with laughter.
The thing that seems to have separated this instalment from the previous two is the lack of a hangover / stag do, etc. The previous two have begun with the morning after the night before and slowly divulged information to the viewer, however this last film doesn't have any of that. This is where I think some viewers have become disappointed, however the film is still very funny. Granted, its not as hilarious as the first movie which was comedy genius and would be almost impossible to match anyway, but it is still worthy of anyone's money in my opinion. Action wise, part 3 has plenty, with some excellent CGI.
The downfall for me which knocks a star off is Mr Chow. I could barely stand him in the previous film, but in part 3 he seems to make the film a little tacky and he is exceptionally annoying. Why they felt the need to add him again and give him such a major part is beyond me. The addition of John Goodman as a gangster is genius, and the return of Heather Graham and Jeffrey Tambor are nice touches.
The Hangover films need little introduction so the final instalment was eagerly anticipated, however it has received mixed reviews across the board. Following the 'Wolfpack', this toned down version offers a nice conclusion to the series, however viewers expecting replicas of the first two instalments will be left disappointed. View this film with no expectations of it and you will love it, however without the 'hangover' as such, it seems to fall just short of what we have all come to expect. After the sensational hit that it became after the original film, it has struggled to keep up with itself and this film definitely continues in that vein.
There are a few noticeable goofs, but nothing that can't be forgiven, although with a budget of $100 million you do wonder why repetition goofs were so hard to spot (watch out for Cassie provocatively biting a lolly which a second later reappears as a whole one, and the stack of towels in Caesars Palace turning into sheets!). The $15 million that each of the Wolfpack reportedly earnt for Part III no doubt eats into the budget, however with the quality of the action scenes and the CGI, I still feel that the budget was spent well. It was projected to earn $80 million in its first five days, which would have gone a long way to recoup the cost of production, but its actually been reported that they made closer to $50 million, which is no doubt a massive disappointment to the Producers when comparing with Hangover 2 which made $135 million in its opening days.
Critical reception hasn't been great with many reporters following the basis of this thought: "Director Todd Phillips delivers a film so different from the first two, I'm not even sure it's supposed to be a comedy.", and "Ditching the hangovers, the backward structure, the fleshed-out characters and any sense of debauchery or fun, this installment instead just thrusts its long-suffering protagonists into a rote chase narrative...". Well I have to disagree with both of those, yes its completely different and it doesn't offer the same hilarity that the previous two have, but it has concluded nicely and what film opening with a man with mental issues driving a sports car with a giraffe in down the freeway can be classed as dull? You decide, but do give it a try.
I saw the first two Hangover films and loved them so I was really excited when the third film was released earlier this month. It is the final film in the series and I hoped that it would go out on a high. Todd Philips wrote and directed the film which was released in UK cinemas on 23rd May 2013. I had seen a few adverts here and there and I must admit I was a little bit concerned that it didn't look as funny as the previous films.
The storyline revolves around Leslie Chow (Mr Chow from the earlier films) who has escaped from prison and is now on the run. The rest of the 'wolfpack' Alan, Phil, Doug and Stu are on their way to a rehab centre in Arizona where Alan will stay after they fear his mental health has deteriorated to a dangerous level. On the way there they are rammed by a truck containing masked men and Doug is taken hostage by the gang who demand that they hunt down Chow who has stolen $42 Million worth of gold. The gang hunted down the men after realising that Chow had been in contact with Alan while in prison. The rest of the film is about the gang hunting down Chow and trying to find the gold so they can get Doug back safely.
The first disappointment was the fact that the film didn't follow the usual format of the gang waking up and not having a clue what is going on. Perhaps the producers thought it might be becoming predictable and repetitive, however I was expecting this and was disappointed that it didn't happen. Therefore the film wasn't really worthy of the title 'Hangover' on this occasion. The second disappointment was the fact that it simply wasn't funny. And that is from someone who went in there in a good mood 'wanting' it to be funny and actually trying to find it funny, but it just wasn't! No matter how hard I tried it just wasn't funny. There were a few moments towards the end which were laugh out loud worthy, but it was almost a bit too late by then. Perhaps if the first two films weren't so hilarious I wouldn't have minded it so much, but I was expecting the same level of comedy and to be laughing out loud throughout but didn't get that.
I was also disappointed with the way the characters had developed. They were all a bit too grown up and in control. I suppose it was trying to mark a change and bring closure to the films, however it just came across as boring and I would have preferred the characters to be like they used to be. The plot itself wasn't that bad in general and gave the usual dangerous predicament that I've come to expect from the films, but there just wasn't quite enough crazy involved to make it as fun as the others. Instead it came across like any other action comedy film. I thought the first two films offered something a bit different, whereas this one failed to do so and wasn't very memorable.
I didn't really have a major opinion on the acting as I don't think any of the cast are anything special, and weren't really in the other two films either. However they are all funny which is what they need to be, it's just a shame that there comedy potential didn't come out fully due to the poor nature of the script and plot.
Overall I was disappointed with the film and whilst there were a few funny moments and I wasn't exactly bored during it, it just didn't live up to what I expected based on the other two films. If it was just a film on its own without being compared to the other two I might have liked it more, but as much as I wanted to enjoy it I just didn't.