Considering Chow is the worst part of BOTH previous movies that's a horrible sign.

Everything does.

I think I'm seeing this with some friends tomorrow night but my expectations are REALLY low at this point.

surprisingly worse than the second.

I really enjoyed it, I thought I was going to hate it 5 minutes in. The Giraffe bit is lame and the effects are awful, but after that it went in an overall successful direction. I like the change in formula and found it very funny when they tried to be funny. An interesting decision to go a less comedic route, also a way of connecting the entire series. Phillips actually directed a few intense sequences, and his cameo here is probably his best yet. I'd like to see him direct a different kind of film next. The cast are pros at this point, and they shine most of the time.

A- from me. It still falls short of the first film, but if you go in there with low expectations, and a good group, you might be surprised.

Part I A+
Part II B
Part III A-/B+

They did get rid of the formula of the first two but choose to go for a crappy premise dealing with Chow. He's okay as a character in the first two for a couple of minutes but having the plot be more about him than the guys just sucks. And it sucks that Bartha never gets to do anything, that would've been a welcome change. Showing all of them walk at the end would've been more effective had there been a better plot. And the mid-credit scene kinda just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Dam I left before the scene, what was it?

I agree, but I find whenever most films change their formula you're going to get a few things that aren't right, and this film certainly has a enough of them, but I think a lot of them were cool. I actually enjoyed Chan the most in this film, I liked the more scumbag approach in this one.

Who the fuck is Chan?

Thegun comparing Mr. Chow to Charlie Chan as an offensive stereotype?

My Theories

1. I think I mixed up Chow with Chang from Community, and stereotypically fell on Chan
2. All this time, I had no idea it was Mr. Chow, I always thought it was Mr. Chan
3. I though Ken Jeong was in fact Ken Chan and was just using his last name to describe his character.

WHAT THE FUCK was this film? One thing, it certainly wasn't - a comedy. Maybe a dull thriller with a recycled plot and some comedic elements, but not a comedy. It was bleak, yes, but it also doesn't qualify as dark comedy. It is just kinda...nothing.

And I don't mean that it's just unfunny. Scary Movie 5 is unfunny (and, mind you, worse than this film), but it is still, a comedy (kind of). I have a hard time putting this in the comedy genre at all.

I mean, I understand the complaints about Part II being a complete retread and utterly unoriginal. It still had a few funny bits and had it just been the first film (without anything preceding it), it probably would have been outright hilarious. This one really goes in an entirely different direction - but not for the good.

I dunno, the whole thing is so ODD. So weird. They play it like this big EPIC finale to a major adventure that comes to a fitting close (or so they think), whereas the whole thing was just a silly (albeit funny) comedy and should have stayed that way. This isn't The Dark Knight or The Matrix. No one buys the "epic tone". And do people really think Ken Jeong is THAT funny in these films???

HANGOVER PART 3

What a fitting conclusion to the series. It certainly lost it's luster after the first one with the copycat second film, but I think the third was a bit more unique and was able to create a story that helped close things up and move Alan a bit forward. Obviously, it's not better than the first film but it was better than the 2nd. I enjoyed myself and it was entertaining. It was nice laughing to the joke about getting Stu getting tested because if you didn't see the 2nd you'd have no idea what he means. I thought that the introduction of Marshall had Goodman channeling Walter from Lebowski. That was funny. The bit with McCarthy was great and I liked the moment that Alan had with "Carlos". I'll add it to my collection just to complete the series.

Grade - B

It has its moments, but as has been widely pointed out, it's just not very good. The tone is bafflingly dark, and Chow's character expanded to this length is nearly excruciating.

I kinda gave up trying to laugh a lot and decided to focus on how hot Bradley Cooper is at some point.

C-

I actually thought that was a good moment too. For a minute I forgot about the baby in the first one lol

I think the movie would've been more successful had they ditched the whole Chow/gold plot (I mean really wtf) and just made most of the movie about their return to Vegas.

One strange beast of a movie, except I write this in an enthusiastic and surprised way, not with disdain. It is super, super nihilistic. It ignores the conceit of the first two films--there is no alcoholic morning-after amnesia--and honestly does not seem interested in comedy in any conventional sense, though there are potent laughs here and there. At one point, Bradley Cooper's character, syringe full of Demerol in hand, creeps through a Vegas penthouse lit by a disorienting strobe light, images of extreme debauchery flashing and vanishing at a seizure inducing pace as Black Sabbath's "N.I.B." loudly plays ("My name is Lucifer/ Please take my hand"). One gets the sense here this summer mega-comedy is flirting with entering Requiem for a Dream territory. And more than once characters directly say or at least indicate they are dead inside and conscious of the fact the booze, pills, and sex are empty distractions until their bodies catch up. (Oh, and there is a shot of a giraffe's severed head flying through the air, trailing blood, and smashing through the window of a suburban family's car.) General audiences will reject it more than they did the second film, let alone the beloved first, but I found it fascinating in its own filthy, spiteful way. Maybe it is just me.

B+

And I adore how the final moments before the end credits, with a certain clever self-hatred, lampoon the improbability of this "epic" trilogy's very existence.

I agree completely, I agree there is a lot wrong, but at the same time there is something about this film that you'd never get to see at such a mainstream level without the popularity of the first film. It's extremely bizarre, but I did laugh my ass of at times, where as the 2nd film only the transvestite reveal really on made me do that (And the payoff of that joke was even better here)

It has a real anarchic quality, as if it is the third Hangover movie as imagined by Tyler Durden.

For some unexplainable reason I was absolutely sure David would love it.

How perfect is the moment when Alan's father abruptly dies as Alan contentedly listens to Billy Joel? Jesus Christ, this movie is good.

Always glad to amuse an ethnic type.

Was the comment made by Mr. Chow about Stu being a greedy Jew, which nobody in my theater laughed at, directed towards the audience for laughing at the stereotype Chow embodies? A big "fuck you" to all the bros in the audience?

I don't think so, I think it was just failed humor as the vast majority of Chow's material in this was.

I will give The Hangover III credit for one thing. The mere existence of A Good Day to Die Hard precludes it from being the worst decline in quality for a follow-up chapter this year.