The Hangover Part III (2013)

The Hangover Part III (2013)
  • Time: 100 min
  • Genre: Comedy
  • Director: Todd Phillips
  • Cast: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms


In the aftermath of the death of Alan’s father, the wolfpack decide to take Alan to get treated for his mental issues. But things start to go wrong on the way to the hospital as the wolfpack is assaulted and Doug is kidnapped. Now they must find Mr. Chow again in order to surrender him to the gangster who kidnapped Doug in order to save him.


  • From “Hangover” 1 to 3, it is a constant downward graph of entertainment. I loved the first movie a lot and accepted the second as pretty good, but this is truly a disgrace. The storyline was very weak, although acting was good but that was not enough. The plot was too stupid and short, hard to believe that it came from same brilliant minds who made the first movie. It seemed like everyone in this movie were forced to work on this project. The movie didn’t provide any fresh or new ideas and there was no hangover at all. It was nowhere near as funny as it should be, since it claims to be the comedy. But then, when the movie ends and the credits roll… something happens! The movie suddenly remembers that it should be a “Hangover” movie and a comedy in first place and gives you the funniest sequence on the entire movie! In one minute we see what the movie should have been the whole time! Do yourself a favor and pass on this one…

  • faizanjahangir

    From hangover 1 to 3, it is a constant downward graph of entertainment. I loved the first movie and somehow accepted the second as an average but this is truly a disgrace. The storyline was very weak, although acting was good but that was not enough. The plot was too stupid and short, hard to believe that it came from same brilliant minds who made the first movie. It seemed like everyone in this movie were forced to work on this project.

    Although there were some funny moments by Zach, who was the main character in this movie. Other characters like Bradely and Helms were merely a supporting cast in this movie. Everyone can easily skip this movie and watch the first Hangover movie again!

  • The first Hangover movie, released in 2009, was a breath of fresh air in the comedy genre. It was clever, funny and original, and people really seemed to enjoy it. Since the first one was such a big success, it was obvious that it would spawn some sequels. So, The Hangover Part II was released. The second Hangover movie was almost identical to its predecessor – it had the same formula, same setup, the same narrative structure, the same plot points; even though it was considerably less funny, it was also still an OK movie. The third movie completely disregards the famous franchises’ formula and goes in a different direction.

    This time there is no wedding, no a bachelor party, no party, nor do the members of the Wolf Pack get drunk/high. This time the plot is very straightforward – Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) have to find Chow (Ken Jeong). Apparently, Chow stole 40 million dollars worth of gold plates from some mafia guy named Marshall (John Goodman), and so in return Marshall kidnapped Doug (Justin Bartha) and blackmailed Phil, Stu and Alan to find and bring him Chow, or else he will kill Doug.

    Basically, this movie lacked the elements that made the first Hangover so good. Of course, the classic Hangover formula needed some experimenting but if you completely abandon the ideas that made the first movie feel so fresh and original, there is a decent chance you’ll just end up stuck with an unoriginal, bland movie. Which is exactly what happened to The Hangover Part III. In a nutshell, Hangover Part III pretty much fails as a sequel to The Hangover. But hey, that doesn’t mean that Hangover Part III fails as a movie, does it? Well, sort of. First of all, Hangover Part III is – once again unlike the first two movies – a much more action/thrill-packed movie. By no means would I call it an action movie, but it definitely shows overtones of one. I didn’t really like these kind of scenes since they didn’t seem vital to the plot and they were far from spectacular. Second of all, Hangover Part III isn’t that funny: I chuckled here and there but the jokes were far from the first Hangover. So I’m not quite sure whether I would give this movie a passing grade. It wasn’t terrible but I feel I could have spent 100 minutes of my time doing something better – like watching some other movie.

    But what do I know? The audience, whom I watched the movie with, really seemed to enjoy it as they were laughing quite often. However, in the credits there is a scene that shows the Wolf Pack waking up from what is implied to be yet another bachelor party. Of course, the setup is classic – they don’t know what happened the night before and are shocked by the mayhem that is surrounding them. This scene was very short and the audience laughed more during those few minutes than throughout the whole movie. Their reactions portrayed my emotions towards this movie very accurately.

    Rating: 5/10

    Read more reviews at

  • It all ends

    After the demise of Alan’s father the wolfpack are reunited again in the 3rd instalment of the Hangover franchise. This time they hit the road to help Alan overcome his mental issues but end up in one of them getting kidnapped. In order to save Doug they need to track down Mr. Chow and surrender him to Marshall a gangster who has been looking to get his hands on him.

    In 2009 we had “The Hangover” which was brilliant, funny and gave me many ideas for nights out (Unfortunately I keep getting talked out of doing em). Then in 2011 we had “The Hangover Part II” everyone was sceptical about it, can they pull it off again? Yep! They did (surprisingly), and now in 2013 we have “The Hangover Part III” Really a 3rd? Will they work their magic again? No! No they did not!

    Read the full review here –

  • Well I guess it’s official, I’m eating my words as we speak. Yeah, I’m the guy who doesn’t like sequels and yet here I am giving positive ratings to Star Trek Into Darkness and now The Hangover Part III. It’s scary to think of what I might do next. If the new Fast and the Furious movie impresses me, I guess I’ll just skip reviewing it and go straight into denial. But seriously folks, I went into the new Hangover with really low expectations. We’re talking bottom feeder if you know what I mean. So from now on I think that’s the key. I’m going to take this approach with every film I see. That way I’ll stroll out of the theater as a movie critic that raves about everything and comes off as not so darn grumpy. Whoa, forget what I just said. I was merely kidding people!

    Anyway, here’s what occurs in part III. At the very beginning, we find mentally unstable “wolfpack” member Alan (Zach Galifianakis getting the most exposure he’s had in any of the Hangover films) buying a giraffe, putting it in the back of his truck, and killing it on the freeway (I’m thinking you know how it happened). Upon doing this, he irritates his family and draws concern from the other “wolfpack” members (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha). Everyone but Alan, stages an intervention on his behalf to get him to a treatment center somewhere in Arizona. He’ll agree to go if his three buds will drive him there. As the four of them set out on a moderately short road trip, their car is rammed off the road, they are dragged out of it (held at gunpoint mind you), and one of the crew (Bartha of course) is taken hostage. This sets off a chain of events which leads everybody to venture back to good old Sin City.

    Well let’s get down to it. Right off the bat I want to let you know why I liked The Hangover Part III. I enjoyed it for the exact reason that some critics panned it. This flick doesn’t try to be like the other two in the trilogy. In fact, it feels like a totally different animal all together. Yes there is a dash of the funny (something part I did effortlessly and part II attempted miserably), but there’s also a hint of darkness that comes close to turning everything into a sort of black comedy with shards of mild violence. For me, this is an effective way to wraps things up (unless there is a part IV of course). You can tell that the director (Todd Phillips) wanted to avoid copping out and injected part III with a little more juice (this is the other reason I liked it and most critics didn’t. They think Phillips went way over the top or felt he had to prove something). He did the film justice by avoiding the same tired plot line (everyone gets smashed and wakes up not knowing what the heck just happened) while making an effort to tie together loose ends from the other two movies (by way of flashbacks). This is done to effect in the first 15 minutes and it sets everything in motion.

    The actors then promptly assume their personalities from the first two installments. Doug Billings who’s never around for the debauchery, plays the happily married nice guy. Alan, plays the screw loose, borderline mental patient who nonchalantly goes about his business. Phil, is the smug, unhappily married school teacher who is calm under pressure, and Stu is the manic anxiety ridden dentist who thinks all hope is gone. Together they fit their roles like comfortable old shoes. Overall their performances are manically unhinged. You get what’s required of them coupled with a fresher more potently nasty script this time around (part II’s had lazy written all over it).

    As far as supporting work goes, I thought John Goodman (gangster Marshall) was a nice little addition to the Hangover family (he riffs off his Big Lebowski character but just not quite as intense). I also like the addition of a love interest for Alan (someone besides man crush Phil) in Melissa McCarthy. She seems to make a cameo in everything these days and certainly is a hoot as a pawn shop owner who candidly berates her wheelchair confined mother.

    The only setback for this Hangover is the blatant deviation from the focus of the four stars of the movie (the infamous “wolfpack”). This exercise is bent on giving two supporting characters their own vehicle (Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow and Galifianakis). True these guys are funny and steal many a scene, but the other members of the cast don’t get a lot of room to breathe. They get kind of pushed to the side and become sort of frowned upon (Bradley Cooper recently got nominated for an Oscar, give him some props for gosh sakes). And what’s with always having Justin Bartha’s character not present with the other members of the “pack” when the madness of their misadventures is going down. It seems predetermined and silly. What, is he not good enough an actor to occupy some precious screen time with his buddies (Bartha was in the colossal flop Gigli (2003) so maybe that’s it, who knows).

    When it all comes down to it, I found myself at ease with the way part III whisked by. It’s darker than the first one, funnier than the second one, and more daring than both of them. I laughed, I winced, and felt confident in recommending this hot mess of a movie. It’s a sequel all right, but it tries really hard not to be one. I admire that. With nothing to lose, you should go check out The Hangover part III. It’s a solid time killer and a required “hair of the dog” if you will.

    Rating: 3 out of 4 stars

    Check out other reviews on my blog:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *