I seem to be different to
everyone else. Not just different like we’re all different but different,
different. I don’t think that Peter Kay saying the words ‘garlic’ and ‘bread’
in close proximity is remotely funny yet he has sold more than ten million DVDs
in the UK.
The phrase ‘Am I bovered’ no matter how cockney’ed up also fails to draw a
smile. When The Hangover was released
in 2009 I didn’t see it in the cinema but months later I gave into the pressure
of everyone telling me it was the best comedy since sliced film and I watched
it at home with my girlfriend. I thought it was dreadful. About a year later we
ventured to the cinema to see Part II
with a large audience. This time it was even worse. I thought it was offensive
and not at all funny but was surrounded on all sides by people having the time
of their lives. It was with great trepidation then, and immediate regret, that
I took a few hours on my day off to see The
Hangover Part III and d’you know what? I think it’s the best of the series.
I use the phrase ‘best’ in the
same way as one might describe Albert Speer as the best Nazi. Sure he was a
Nazi but didn’t he design some lovely buildings? What I’m getting at is that The Hangover Part III is the best of a
bad bunch. Once again I might find myself in the minority here and I’m sure the
cinemas will be packed for weeks with guffawing humans, rocking back and forth
in their seats and looking at each other with mutual recognition that they are
part of a group. The third (and hopefully final) instalment of The Hangover series is neither as
offensive nor as formulaic as the second film and about as funny as the first.
I laughed once and smiled about four or five times.
Much of the opening five minutes
will be familiar to you if you’ve seen the trailer. In this respect at least,
the film does something good. Generally comedy trailers take all the big laughs
from a film and squeeze them into one two minute trailer which makes the movie
look like Citizen Kane covered in
sugar. The film’s trailer at least attempts to leave some surprises for the
actual film, even if those surprises are about as surprising as seeing a car on
a road. The incredibly convoluted plot involves the ‘Wolfpack’ (Kill me. Kill
me now) driving across hundreds of miles of desert because they are taking
Allen (Zach Galifianakis) to some sort of retreat to help him with his obvious
psychiatric problems. The foursome are jumped by gangsters headed up by
Marshall (John Goodman) who orders the four guys to track down Part II’s baddie Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) who
is responsible for stealing Marshall’s gold.
International gangster Marshall can’t find Mr
Chow so he orders four hopeless losers to do it for him. That’s the level we’re
at here. Luckily though, as collateral, Marshall
takes the least interesting of the foursome with him in a repeat of the
previous films. The plot then unravels like a particularly knotted ball of
wool, following the men as they track down Chow across the South Western US and
Mexico.
The writers obviously took a lot from the second film and realised that they
couldn’t get away with simply rehashing the same formula for a third time so
give Mr Chow, who I believe was a popular character, much more screen time in
this film. Allen, the obvious draw of the franchise also holds much of the
focus and provides all of the laugh(s). The other two, Ed Helms and Bradley
Cooper are generally used to bounce off and in the most part react rather than
act.
There are several problems with
the plot which need to be bought up at this point. The first problem is one
I’ve already touched upon. A gangster would never get these men to track down
an international criminal who has stolen his gold. I can let that go because
after all, this is a comedy so the rules of what is and isn’t acceptable tend
to get a little blurred. A huge error occurs in a break-in sequence in which
Chow persuades the other three to help him steal the gold from his old house.
Having knocked through a brick wall with a sledgehammer, they are then locked in
a room, held against their will by an almighty, impregnable little wooden door.
While they bang against the door and shout as loud as their lungs will allow,
they all seem to forget that they have s sledgehammer beside them. In a later
scene they also kick open a locked door which is twice as large. Once they lose
Chow, Marshall
re-enters the picture to tell them off. Instead of ending their lives and
thankfully the franchise for good, he decides instead to give them a limo to
try again. The whole thing is preposterous beyond belief. You’d think
preposterous in a comedy would be a good thing but if the audience isn’t
laughing then it just looks lame.
On a plus note, the
cinematography isn’t bad at all and the film looks very good. There are some
nice camera angles and design choices and it also doesn’t last too long. Zach
Galifianakis is the best thing about the film and the series as a whole and has
tailored the character perfectly to himself. I don’t know how much of his
dialogue is scripted but the way he presents it, it feels very much off the
cuff. It’s a shame though that what he says is rarely amusing. Ed Helms is
given very little to do in this film and after a couple of films which made me
think I might be wrong about him, Bradley Cooper is firmly back in familiar
territory again. Ken Jeong is meant to be playing a hilarious character but is
offensive and distasteful from start to finish. A major problem with the film
as a whole is the amount of unnecessary animal death. At least three species are
killed for laughs in various, detestable ways. I don’t understand what part of
decapitating a giraffe or smothering a bird is meant to be funny, maybe it’s
the bit when they take their final breath or perhaps it’s all the blood? Either
way I didn’t like it at all. What’s worse is that the movie wasn’t brave enough
to show one of the animal deaths for pet related reasons. It’s a massive cop
out.
In the end then I think The Hangover Part III is a terrible film
but what do I know. I’m sure it will make hundreds of millions of dollars and
will be being typed into the ‘favourite movies’ column of thousands of Facebook
profiles alongside its predecessors and various Adam Sandler and Jennifer
Anniston vehicles. If you like films full of plot holes in which animals die or
like laughing at people because they’re Chinese or have mental disabilities
then this is the film for you.
3/10
Titbits
- The three leads were reportedly paid $15 million each to return for a third film.
- Fans of the series will want to stay until after the credits start rolling for an after credits scene.
- Sean Penn and Robert Downey Jr were considered for John Goodman's role.
What a bummer of a movie. Everybody and their perverted mothers complained about the second one not being funny, but it looks like a freakin' masterpiece compared to this shite. Good review Tom.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that we keep going to see them so they keep making them. I've added a few dollars to the pot.
DeleteI can just imagine how much it sucked. Good review.
ReplyDeleteHopefully my words will put people off and save them their time but I doubt it.
DeleteThanks for the review. I liked the first movie but the second movie was just stupid. I wasn't sure why they even made a third movie except to cash in one more time. Now that even Fast and Furious can beat it in the second weekend shows that the reviews are getting around.
ReplyDeleteEven in horror movies, killing animals, especially graphically, is a bad idea. I always check before seeing a horror if animals are hurt or killed. It makes me feel bad and disturbed and when I go to a movie, I want to be entertained. I don't want to see animals or children hurt or worse.
I'm glad I saw the review. My wife and my niece were on their way to see it when I texted them about the animal cruelty. They turned around and are watching Role Models on DVD. A tepid but harmless comedy romp (not everything can be My Cousin Vinny).
The cruelty was needless and crass. I'm glad that I, however tenuously, managed to help a couple of people avoid the movie.
Delete