I’m of the opinion that comedies, like horror movies, should be reviewed with a special filter.
Horror movies should be judged on their ability to scare you on sight and linger in your dreams until you’re investing in a lighthouse to scare away boogeymen. Comedies should be judged on their ability to consistently make you laugh. Weeks after viewing a great comedy, the sheer memory of the comedy’s one-liners and set-pieces should incite manic bouts of laughter in the viewer.
What it boils down to is that the plot is put on the backburner. The plot has relevance – you want characters that are likable and plausible, but you’ve made a purposeful investment in something that is, in this case, supposed to make you laugh.
If you’re planning on investing your time and money into director Todd Phillips’ “The Hangover Part 3,” be prepared to be disappointed.
Todd Phillips’ “The Hangover” was a comedy masterpiece, worthy of a four-star comedy review. The laughs were consistent, the set-pieces unique and the mysteries of the plot managed to be intriguing. “The Hangover Part 2” was the opposite, a desperate cash-grab that blatantly copied and pasted the plot of the first movie onto a new setting. The conclusion to the trilogy, “The Hangover Part 3” finds itself between the two movies, containing funny elements but nowhere near as re-watchable or quotable as the first movie.
In “Part 3,” the Wolfpack of Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zack Galifinakis) are on the hunt for Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) who has managed to rob $24 million worth of gold bars from a cranky gangster named Marshall (John Goodman). The Wolf Pack is recruited for this recon mission because Marshall’s only clue to Chow’s whereabouts lies in the pen pal relationship between Alan and Chow (“Dear Chow, The McRib is back. Why did it ever go away?”). The irreverent Doug (Justin Bartha) is taken as collateral and the gang begins their globetrotting search for the vulgar, racially stereotypical Chow. If they don’t locate Chow soon, Doug will be in big trouble.
The craziest thing for me about the “Hangover” movies is how much of the plot revolves around recovering Doug. I don’t think he deserved to dehydrate in the first movie, be involved in the sequel or be threatened at gun-point in the finale. But really, who cares about Doug? Would anyone even remember even his name if Mike Epps wasn’t so funny playing Black Doug? I suppose by the third movie, it’s kind of a self-reference kind of thing.
A self-aware point-of-view of the “Hangover” plot conventions acknowledges that we’re watching a comedy and not recreating “Citizen Kane.” But if that’s the case, why not make a funnier movie? I’m not here complaining about jokes falling flat or joke premises being lengthy. I’m referring here to the way the third movie takes a wickedly dark and violent turn. A real intervention takes place for Alan, erasing the tongue-in-cheek nature of his antics. Phil sums up the decapitation of Alan’s pet giraffe as “funny.” The characters are unceremoniously gunned down.
If this review has soured you on seeing the movie, good. Watching this movie for money will encourage the studios to produce more mediocrity. If you lost a bet, or find yourself succumbing to peer-pressure, there are bright spots. Melissa McCarthy, the scene-thief from “Bridesmaids,” does it again here, playing a pawnshop owner who has the hots for Alan. Don’t miss Chow’s impression of a friendly dog saying hello to Stu. Imagine two dogs in a park greeting each other. Now imagine people reenacting that.
It’s exactly what you’d think. Lastly, if you think Stu marrying a hooker or getting a Mike Tyson face tattoo was bad, you won’t believe the sight gag he closes the movie with. Unfortunately, you can keep count of the number of times you’ll laugh, but the few laughs that do occur rival the quality of the laughs in the first movie.
2 out of 4 stars
