1) There should've never been any sequels.
2) The sequels highlight the worst aspects of the original film.
I'm going to get into some of this in the review as well as discussing the individual quality of this third entry.
Let's just start with reason #1. "The Hangover" is a brilliant movie. All the elements come together to make a comedy that will last the ages. A true classic. The problem is that, unlike many films that become classics, "The Hangover" was hugely successful. With a budget of $35 million, "The Hangover" took in over $450 million worldwide. I hate to break it to you, but Hollywood is a business. There are people who are trying to make art, but only if that art stands to make a profit. Making another "Hangover" movie seemed a sure thing.
With a budget of $80 million, "The Hangover: Part II" disappointed the world in 2011. We were essentially tricked into seeing this movie. The trailers promised more wacky hijinks from the characters we love. This was a scam. "The Hangover: Part II" proved to be a remake of the first film. But it was a remake wherein all the fun was removed and we had to spend half the movie with Ken Jeong's screeching portrayal of Leslie Chow. That's reason #2. The worst parts of "The Hangover" were how the story was just a pointless series of things happening (but it was so much fun!), the minimal screen time of Justin Bartha, Leslie Chow, and how Zach Galifianakis' portrayal of Alan could be viewed as belligerent and mean instead of innocently oblivious. Those four things are amplified for the "The Hangover: Part II." But the scam worked. The sequel made nearly $600 million worldwide. A third installment was inevitable.
With "The Hangover: Part III," the decision was made to strip away not only the fun but also the hijinks. The story would revolve around the characters being blackmailed into committing a robbery. Alan (everyone's favorite character in the first movie) would be horrible, unfunny, and mean-spirited with no redeeming qualities. And 75% of the screen time would involve Leslie Chow. These horrible ideas were given a $103 million budget! The returns would not be so sweet this time, however. The third film grossed $350 million worldwide. No slouch, but the law of diminishing returns helped ensure that "The Hangover" trilogy would remain a trilogy.
I do consider "Part III" superior to "Part II." But that's like saying vomiting is superior to diarrhea. what gives "Part III" the edge over "Part II" is that the story is different. I never wanted a repeat of "The Hangover" when the first sequel came out. At least, "Part III" tried to take the characters in a new direction. But that raises the question of "why call it a 'Hangover' movie then?" Why not just make comedies involving the same actors and capitalize on their chemistry together? That way, the film is not beholden to story or character expectations. The run of comedies starring Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor are a prime example of how this can work. So too are movies produced by Judd Apatow.
If you're one of those people who were smart enough not to go see "The Hangover: Part III," there's no reason to join those of us who didn't learn our lesson with "Part II." Just stay away. You'd be better off spending the weekend getting blackout drunk and causing mischief. (For legal reasons, the author does not actually condone excessive alcohol consumption or "causing mischief." Maybe try drinking some hot cocoa and writing a letter to your grandma. She misses you.)
4 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment