When the original “Hangover” came out 4 years ago, it was billed as a raunchy comedy… and I didn’t see it. That sounded suspiciously (to me) like a pointless Farrelly Brothers-style gross-out.
I finally watched it on the big screen thanks to my magnanimous good buddy (caution: shout out), Donny D. And I loved it. The original film had everything… comedy, suspense, chases, ridiculousness. Every scene promised to top the last, while still propelling the story forward. When the movie ended, it felt like minutes, not hours. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, “no bad movie is short enough; no good movie is too long.”
When the second “Hangover” dropped, I went to a midnight showing. It was a carbon copy of the original, and RIGHTLY SO. Boo to those who complained about the fact that the second movie was essentially the first, with Las Vegas swapped out for Bangkok. To me, the sequel was just as good because it was the same film. That’s an unpopular viewpoint, but think about it: had Todd Phillips and company made a wildly different “Hangover II,” audiences would complain that it wasn’t as good as the first because they strayed from the formula. This is what happens with sequels… filmmakers take a risk and get slapped. “Wayne’s World II” is probably the only comedy sequel in the past 20 years to make a big change and still be a decent film. I loved that movie (and the first), and was thinking about them as I headed into “Hangover III.”
What if Mike Myers & Dana Carvey had made a third “Wayne’s World”? What would the plot be? Maybe Wayne and Garth start a band and really try to make it. Or they start rival bands with Cassandra trying to choose which one to take on tour? I’m just brainstorming here, and I’m sure it would have come out well – probably like “This Is Spinal Tap.” But instead, what if Mike Myers veered off and fashioned the third installment after “Let It Be,” the sad documentary of the Beatles bickering their way through rehearsals and slowly breaking up? Would we have wanted to see Wayne and Garth arguing over middle-eights and concert plans and having Cassandra hovering in the foreground? NO.
Well, that’s pretty much what Todd Phillips did with “Hangover III.” It’s not a good-natured buddy comedy. It’s trying to be “Lethal Weapon 5.”
For the first half of the film, Bradley Cooper and Zach Galifinakis seem very AWARE that they’re playing characters. Only near the end, during a frenetic chase through Vegas, did I see glimmers of their characters from the first 2 films.
The best scene – shimmying down the side of Caesar’s Palace – is again a mix of adventure and comedy. Phil is hanging by a bedsheet when Alan asks him to hold still for an iPhone photo. It’s a half-call back to an earlier gag, but so unexpected it worked. Totally in-character for Alan. And the topper is when Phil, at first annoyed, asks “Did you get it?” and then holds still for another photo when the answer is no.
Ed Helms’ biggest laugh is when he’s not sure he can catch Mr. Chow. Throughout the trilogy, Phil has ragged on Stu for being a dentist and not a doctor. This time, to give Stu confidence, Phil says “you can do this! YOU’RE A DOCTOR!” and the look on Ed Helms’ face is one of the film’s highlights.
Unfortunately, what were highlights in the other 2 films don’t work here. Ken Jeong’s genius portrayal of Mr. Chow is, this time, just a conveyance on which to hang the plot. His accent sounds like he’s imitating himself. Maybe that’s why he has so few funny lines. The undercurrent of hostility that Chow radiated in the first two films is more like wasted whining here.
Wasted scenes seem to be the order of the day. As much as I am obsessed with Heather Graham, a detour to see her character is totally pointless (except for a quick sight gag). The baby (Carlos) from the first film is now a tot, and Alan engages him in a mini-playdate. Instead of being charming or even bizarre, the filmmakers aimed for cute pathos… and failed. They land at unpleasant sadness.
Mr. Chow’s apartment is filled with cockfighting chickens at one point, but aside from filling the screen with feathers, they do not figure into the plot.
Black Doug (Mike Epps) returns and has transformed himself from inept drug-dealer into head of security for a crime boss (John Goodman)… supposedly the job he held during the first film. And then, in a totally unnecessary scene, he’s killed, as are Goodman and a henchman later. Along with someone at the beginning of the film, that’s 4 deaths in “Hangover III,” and none in the first two (although I was surprised by the casualness with which a virtuoso cellist reacted to losing a digit in the second film).
And the list goes on. As a film, it seems to exist solely so Phillips and company can say they made a trilogy. And like “The Godfather,” this trilogy is really two splendid films and one dark, confusing mess.
One of my favorite scenes from the trilogy (NSFW):
And here's something more exciting -- a compilation of the best moments of Mr. Chow:
