Review: The Hangover Part III

I told myself, I would never come back.

When is a comedy not a comedy?

The Hangover Part III is an odd film. With the second entry in the series running on fumes, Part III shakes the formula up by ditching the set-up of the prior films and plays it more or less straightforward. There’s a bigger scope to this film that’s evident from the off as it opens with Mr Chow (Ken Jeong, the Wolf Pack’s nemesis in the first two films), escaping from a south-Asian prison and seemingly on his way back to the US.

Meanwhile Zach Galifianakis’ Alan is displaying some highly erratic behaviour. So Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Doug (Justin Bartha) decide to intervene, offering to help by driving Alan to a facility to get the help he needs. On the way there, they’re ambushed by a gang of criminals led by John Goodman’s Marshall, who needs their help to locate Chow and $21 million in missing gold bars.

While I can’t say that part III is as blasé as part II, it is nevertheless a strikingly unfunny film; a step back from its predecessor which still managed to drudge up some (crude) laughs. Director Todd Philips opts for a crime/heist caper rather than the “men behaving badly” pastiche, answering critics who thought part II was more of the same. So while it isn’t (somehow) as juvenile as before, in terms of tone it becomes two different genres clashing awkwardly. What was fun and irreverent before is now po-faced and more than a bit morbid.

It ties up elements of the franchise you didn’t know, and quite frankly never needed tying up. The plotting is contrived, lazy and tired with characters (especially Chow) having inexplicable knowledge of certain things just to move the story onwards. There’s no rhyme and very little reason as to what’s happening and why you should care. It’s a series that could, and should, have ended after the first film.

Part III isn’t unwatchable but it is much of a nothingness: a nondescript, lethargic film with characters that have less maturity than a five-year old. Philips directs as if he’s on auto-pilot and the whole enterprise would be unremarkable save for some surreal moments involving Melissa McCarthy’s Cassie. Like most of Philips’ recent output there’s a mean-spirited nature about its humour, with characters shouting at the elderly, smothering a chicken and sniffing another person’s backside like a dog would. At times its bizarre and demented. Philips and screenwriter Craig Mazin seem to think that’s funny.

It isn’t. It’s actually really boring.

4/10

Top 12 most disappointing films of the year

A few of these films could feature on my worst of list at the end of the year but at the moment my feeling towards them is one of disappointment. I went to the cinema, sat in anticipation was underwhelmed/turned off/crushed by these films.

The Hangover Part II

Despite laughing at this film I was also completely bored by its insistence to repeat the original beat-for-beat. Despite its success I’m still nore sure comedy sequels can work or bring anything new to the table.

Sucker Punch

Sucker Punch is a bit of a mess isn’t? A gorgeous looking one but a mess all the same. I’m still amazed that they gave Snyder the Man of Steel gig.

Green Lantern

As bad as the reviews said it was? No, but a very, very average comic book adaptation.

Arthur

At the screening I went to people laughed, I must have a miserable sense of humour because I could not wait for this film to end.

Faster

Someone needs to give Dwayne Johnson a good action film to be in and not this boring nonsense.

Battle  Los Angeles

Is it possible to suffer a concussion from the sonic bombardment that is Battle Los Angeles? Incredibly loud.

Paul

One of the biggest disappointments because I actually had expectations for it. Nowhere near as funny as it should have been.

The Mechanic

Jason Statham beats people up. Again.

The Green Hornet

Not horrible, just instantly forgettable.

Priest

Front-runner for the worst film I’ve seen this year. Hang your head in shame Paul Bettany

Red Riding Hood

Half an hour in and you should know the identity of the wolf. Indie (ish) soundtrack is also annoying.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Kids deserve better than this, they really do (reminisces about The Flight of the Navigator)

Review: The Hangover Part II

It happened again…

After the surprise success of the original Todd Philips film, The Hangover Part II sees the return of Phil (Bradley Cooper), Alan (Zach Galifianakis), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) as they travel to Thailand for Stu’s wedding to Lauren (Jamie Chung).

With the memory of their previous bachelor’s party in Las Vegas still lingering, Stu is reluctant to take any chances. Two nights before the wedding Stu gives in, has a drink and wonders ‘what’s the worst that could happen?’

What’s surprising about this sequel is just how similar it is to the previous film. Alike in structure, content and in some moments, laughs, what makes this film ever so slightly different from its predecessor is the setting of Bangkok.

If you could imagine viewing The Hangover through a dirty, stained window then its sequel is seen through a dirty, stained and cracked one that revels in the depravity Bangkok offers, taking advantage of the numerous situations the city provides.

The set ups and pay-offs deliver in a manner you’d expect, meaning the novelty and surprise factor of the original’s narrative fade as the film rigidly adheres to the template set by the first film. It never surprises and conforms to the expectations that more of the same is adequate enough.

Is The Hangover Part II an unmissable sequel? Not in the slightest. For audiences who haven’t seen the original or those who simply enjoy seeing the shenanigans of the Wolf pack on the big screen again, then Part II fits the remit of a film designed to provide a familiar experience. For audiences looking for something fresh, you may feel you’re watching Déjà Vu: The Return.