“The Hangover Part III” Has Its Moments

Opinion

“The Hangover Part III” begins with a look into the life of Alan Garner (Zach Galifianakis), whose thoughtless antics and all-around stupidity has continued to hurt his entire family, including his father (Jeffery Tambor), who has a heart attack and dies following an argument with Alan over an accident that decapitated a pet giraffe and caused a huge pileup on the highway.Following the funeral, Alan’s family decides they have had enough, so they hold an intervention along with the help of Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms) to convince Alan to go to rehab in Arizona. Alan eventually complies with this request on the condition that Phil, Stu, and Doug (Justin Bartha) go with Alan so the Wolf Pack will be together again.

Unfortunately for all of those involved, the pack’s trip to Arizona is quickly interrupted by a mob boss named Marshall (John Goodman), who informs the group that Alan has been in close contact with the previously incarcerated Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who successfully stole $21 million dollars from Marshall. Obviously angered by Chow’s actions, Marshall’s men kidnap Doug and threaten to kill him unless Alan meets with Chow and finds a way to get the money back to Marshall.

What ensues is a series of misadventures involving (but certainly not limited to) wire-cutting by a color-blind Asian, a visit with Stu’s ex-wife Jade (Heather Graham) and “Carlos”, climbing down Caesars Palace using bed sheets for a rope, and a love connection with a pawnshop owner named Cassie (Melissa McCarthy).

“The Hangover Part III” was definitely not as good as the original film, but I sincerely believe that the consensus that this film was an utter disaster is a bit misguiding. Ken Jeong has his biggest role in any of the Hangover movies as Chow and makes the most of it, producing the most laughs from the audience thanks to his insanity and outrageousness that is displayed throughout the film. Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms don’t necessary take the reins in this one and act as the “stars” on the screen, but they do, however, do their part to keep the film going and keep the viewers interested.

While the film was not necessarily a disaster that should have been avoided altogether (See: “A Thousand Words”), it was damaged, at least in my opinion, by the need to focus a good bit of the the time on Alan. Yes, Alan was one of the stars in the first two films due to his innocent nature and childish outlook on things, but in “The Hangover Part III” he comes off as ridiculous and as an inhibitor to the others more often than not without providing the laughs that this spot calls for. Alan does straighten up a bit at the end of the film which does help his case at least a little, but his role in the film will probably not be one that Zach Galifianakis brags to others about in the near future.

If I had to rate “The Hangover Part III” on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being a masterpiece and 1 being “A Thousand Words” (I really hated that movie), I would give it a 5.5; it’s better than “Part II” in my opinion, but definitely could have been better. Would I recommend someone to go out and pay $10 to watch this movie in the theaters? Absolutely not. Would I recommend someone to wait until it comes out on DVD and pay the $1 to rent it from RedBox? If they are a fan of the Hangover series and its understood style of humor, then yes.

Back to Top