"The Hangover III" - directed by Todd Phillips
For a series that was based on one simple premise the Hangover movies have done well to get to a third.
The first two movies were practically identical apart from a location and a name here and there.
Three men wake up from a rough night and cannot remember how they lost their fourth friend.
Two films pretty much scene for scene, shot for shot the same.
But the films worked and generated massive box office.
Here's the secret though - these films are basically extremely well cast character pieces.
There is an almost perfect mix of personalities in the four main group- the Wolfpack.
Alan the idiot man-child.
Stu the stick in the mud everyman with a dark side.
Phil the good looking cool one.
And Doug.... well he is Doug - he is a maguffin of a character used to serve a purpose.
I didn't mind one little bit that the second movie was effectively a remake of the first.
I just like spending time with these characters. The situations that they get themselves in and out of are hilarious and unpredicatable.
In part two we saw more incredible idiocy from Alan, more humiliation for Stu as he learns that he has had sex with a man-woman and had a rather prominent tattoo done and more ridiculous philosophies from Phil as he attempts to hold the group together ('Didn't happen').
With the third and allegedly final movie the makers stray from the formula and give us a different movie.
This time there is no hangover and no memory loss.
There is no doubt that a third film was always going to make more than its money back but still- it counts as a somewhat brave move to stray from the formula.
So - does it work?
The basic plot this time is that a mobster coerces the Wolfpack into hunting down Leslie Chow who has stolen twenty one million dollars in gold from him.
The team are on their way to a retreat at which Alan will be treated for his increasingly erratic behaviour when they are ambushed.
Effectively the entire movie now becomes a manhunt.
During the journey though one character is focused on above all else- Alan.
Stu will not have anything horrific done to him such as facial tattoo's or hermaphrodite sex (although maybe stay through the end credits just in case...).
Both he and Phil become support characters as we watch Alan sorting out his issues amidst the chaos of tracking down Leslie Chow.
It is jarring at first to have this be the case but it does work.
It is a slippery slope relying on one character to carry the weight of the film - particularly one as seemingly one dimensional as Alan.
By expanding his character and fleshing it out through the story though it is quite effective.
Everything and everyone is filtered through this character - at the service of him.
His obsession with Phil, his seeming hatred of Stu and his weird friendship with Chow.
So, plot and character are solid but what really counts is the laugh ratio.
I would say that this is lighter on laughs than both of the previous movies but given that it is aiming for a conclusion and with the expanded focus on one character it gets away with it.
The humour is definitely there but it arises almost totally out of character than situation.
Early on there is a great exchange between Phil and Stu where the latter teases the former about his dalliance in Thailand.
Later we will meet two characters from previous movies and return to at least one location.
The entire plot it eventuates is ignited by events way back in the first movie.
It all works wonderfully well and feels like a genuine third movie rather than a bolted on cash in.
This is absolutely a film for the fans.
If I have a criticism it is that Leslie Chow is over used.
This character is a dish best served in small portions and by giving him a lot of scenes it takes too much focus off the main trio (yes- once again Doug is sidelined early on).
The one note nature of the character becomes too apparent.
I would rather have had more time with Phil and Stu than with Chow.
It leaves them feeling underused and for talents such as Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms this is a bad idea.
Fortunately the plot moves at breakneck speed so there is barely time to be overly concerned.
Set piece after set piece comes at you as the Wolfpack take part in several break-ins, a chase, an arrest and many more crazy shenanigans.
Along the way Alan will meet a love interest, Stu will catch up with a former one and at least one person will not make it through alive.
If Chow is overused at least they use him well.
Like everyone else he is simply there to advance the plot and move Alan along the path that he is on.
The break-in sequence reveals a far more cunning criminal mind than has been hinted at previously and I liked this a lot.
It is hard to tell if Chow is a villain or a hero at this point.
Maybe somewhere in the middle. He has to make way for the real bad guy after all.
John Goodman is a welcome addition and is suitably menacing as Marshall the mobster.
He is almost a more refined version of his character from "The Big Lebowski".
It is strange to see him play it this straight in a comedy when we are used to him being the most manic, over the top performer.
Refer to the great "Barton Fink" for a taste of what he could have brought to Marshall if the script had allowed.
The rest of the cast just do what they do and I don't mean this as dismissive of their contributions.
They all simply live so comfortably, so familiarly in their characters skins that the performances are almost invisible.
It's that great casting again.
Bradley Cooper is the biggest star without doubt and I like that he generously steps back and allows his character to support the story.
I've always felt that Phil is the most interesting character but he has been far more restrained in the the last two movies than the first.
Watching "The Hangover" (the first one) now it is interesting to see how much edgier and out and out mean Phil was.
He has mellowed steadily with each sequel.
In truth this movie is not as funny as the first two. It shies away from the edgier stuff and is not as daring or as outrageous as we have come to expect from a Hangover movie.
That's fine in one sense as this is trying to wrap things up (at least one aspect).
In terms of a comedy it is less fine.
If Cooper and Helms had been given more to do and if it had hit the manic heights of R rating pushing mayhem that previous installments had I would count this as good as the previous movies.
As it stands it is a fun time at the movies with characters that I love and is a solid, if not spectacular entry in an excellent comedy series.
And yes- there is plenty of room for more.
Stay for the end credits and you'll see.
The first two movies were practically identical apart from a location and a name here and there.
Three men wake up from a rough night and cannot remember how they lost their fourth friend.
Two films pretty much scene for scene, shot for shot the same.
But the films worked and generated massive box office.
Here's the secret though - these films are basically extremely well cast character pieces.
There is an almost perfect mix of personalities in the four main group- the Wolfpack.
Alan the idiot man-child.
Stu the stick in the mud everyman with a dark side.
Phil the good looking cool one.
And Doug.... well he is Doug - he is a maguffin of a character used to serve a purpose.
I didn't mind one little bit that the second movie was effectively a remake of the first.
I just like spending time with these characters. The situations that they get themselves in and out of are hilarious and unpredicatable.
In part two we saw more incredible idiocy from Alan, more humiliation for Stu as he learns that he has had sex with a man-woman and had a rather prominent tattoo done and more ridiculous philosophies from Phil as he attempts to hold the group together ('Didn't happen').
With the third and allegedly final movie the makers stray from the formula and give us a different movie.
This time there is no hangover and no memory loss.
There is no doubt that a third film was always going to make more than its money back but still- it counts as a somewhat brave move to stray from the formula.
So - does it work?
The basic plot this time is that a mobster coerces the Wolfpack into hunting down Leslie Chow who has stolen twenty one million dollars in gold from him.
The team are on their way to a retreat at which Alan will be treated for his increasingly erratic behaviour when they are ambushed.
Effectively the entire movie now becomes a manhunt.
During the journey though one character is focused on above all else- Alan.
Stu will not have anything horrific done to him such as facial tattoo's or hermaphrodite sex (although maybe stay through the end credits just in case...).Both he and Phil become support characters as we watch Alan sorting out his issues amidst the chaos of tracking down Leslie Chow.
It is jarring at first to have this be the case but it does work.
It is a slippery slope relying on one character to carry the weight of the film - particularly one as seemingly one dimensional as Alan.
By expanding his character and fleshing it out through the story though it is quite effective.
Everything and everyone is filtered through this character - at the service of him.
His obsession with Phil, his seeming hatred of Stu and his weird friendship with Chow.
So, plot and character are solid but what really counts is the laugh ratio.
I would say that this is lighter on laughs than both of the previous movies but given that it is aiming for a conclusion and with the expanded focus on one character it gets away with it.
The humour is definitely there but it arises almost totally out of character than situation.
Early on there is a great exchange between Phil and Stu where the latter teases the former about his dalliance in Thailand.
Later we will meet two characters from previous movies and return to at least one location.
The entire plot it eventuates is ignited by events way back in the first movie.
It all works wonderfully well and feels like a genuine third movie rather than a bolted on cash in.
This is absolutely a film for the fans.
If I have a criticism it is that Leslie Chow is over used.
This character is a dish best served in small portions and by giving him a lot of scenes it takes too much focus off the main trio (yes- once again Doug is sidelined early on).
The one note nature of the character becomes too apparent.
I would rather have had more time with Phil and Stu than with Chow.
Fortunately the plot moves at breakneck speed so there is barely time to be overly concerned.
Set piece after set piece comes at you as the Wolfpack take part in several break-ins, a chase, an arrest and many more crazy shenanigans.
Along the way Alan will meet a love interest, Stu will catch up with a former one and at least one person will not make it through alive.
If Chow is overused at least they use him well.
Like everyone else he is simply there to advance the plot and move Alan along the path that he is on.
The break-in sequence reveals a far more cunning criminal mind than has been hinted at previously and I liked this a lot.
It is hard to tell if Chow is a villain or a hero at this point.
Maybe somewhere in the middle. He has to make way for the real bad guy after all.
John Goodman is a welcome addition and is suitably menacing as Marshall the mobster.
He is almost a more refined version of his character from "The Big Lebowski".
It is strange to see him play it this straight in a comedy when we are used to him being the most manic, over the top performer.
Refer to the great "Barton Fink" for a taste of what he could have brought to Marshall if the script had allowed.
They all simply live so comfortably, so familiarly in their characters skins that the performances are almost invisible.
It's that great casting again.
Bradley Cooper is the biggest star without doubt and I like that he generously steps back and allows his character to support the story.
I've always felt that Phil is the most interesting character but he has been far more restrained in the the last two movies than the first.
Watching "The Hangover" (the first one) now it is interesting to see how much edgier and out and out mean Phil was.
He has mellowed steadily with each sequel.
In truth this movie is not as funny as the first two. It shies away from the edgier stuff and is not as daring or as outrageous as we have come to expect from a Hangover movie.
That's fine in one sense as this is trying to wrap things up (at least one aspect).
In terms of a comedy it is less fine.
If Cooper and Helms had been given more to do and if it had hit the manic heights of R rating pushing mayhem that previous installments had I would count this as good as the previous movies.
As it stands it is a fun time at the movies with characters that I love and is a solid, if not spectacular entry in an excellent comedy series.
And yes- there is plenty of room for more.
Stay for the end credits and you'll see.
| Rated | R16 for drug use, profanity and nudity |
| Running Time: | 100 minutes (1hr 34mins without end credits) |
| Starring: |
| Bradley Cooper | --- Phil |
| Ed Helms | --- Stu |
| Zach Galifianakis | --- Alan |
| Justin Bartha | --- Doug |
| Ken Jeong | --- Mr Chow |
| John Goodman | --- Marshall |
| Melissa McCarthy | --- Cassie |
| Jeffrey Tambor | --- Sid |
| Heather Graham | --- Jade |
| Mike Epps | --- Black Doug |
| Sasha Barrese | --- Tracy |
It was terrible. I have never liked the previous movies either. I think it is a perfect example for an unnecessary sequel. Unfunny people doing unfunny things in unfunny situations.
ReplyDeleteI quite like the previous movies. If you didn't like the last two why did you see the third one? Did you think the different structure might make it better?
DeleteThat is a good question. :) My friend wanted to see it and since there is nothing else out right now apart from Epic (I am watching that tomorrow) I said yes :)
DeleteUnderstood - I'm like that too. Ended up seeing The Hangover III on a whim again last night under the same circumstance.
Delete