Face value

Rating: 9/10 (8 June 2013)

It seems to me that Todd Phillips is primarily interested in character- driven stories. Comedy is a part of that, because some of his characters are tragic/pathetic/helpless, which very often can be funny.
But that also means that the characters to some extent decide where the story goes. As it happens, this particular story turned out to not be a comedy. Considering what kind of person Chow really is, that isn't so surprising. Lets face it, he is a full-blown psychopath. He may seem funny at first, he did so in Part I, and to a lesser degree in Part II, but in Part III we get a really close look. He isn't funny. He is actually damn scary.
A lot of people, judging from the user reviews, were expecting a comedy. And since Hangover Part 3 isn't all that funny, they gave it 1's and 2's. I mean, seriously? A rating of 1 means that there was absolutely no skill involved in making the movie. And that simply isn't true in this case. It's a very well made movie: it's well written, well directed, well played, and well timed. It just isn't a comedy. It's a STORY. It's a gritty and realistic portrayal of some pretty messed up people, in some pretty bad situations.
I enjoyed the movie a lot. I got no promise from Todd Phillips that I would get a comedy. It's right there, on the poster, for all to see: 3 grim men, dressed in black, in a black environment. That's a poster that says: THIS IS NOT A COMEDY!
In fact, one could argue that Part I and II set the stage for Part III to really have an effect on the audience. It certainly had an effect on me, i won't be forgetting it anytime soon. It's an eye-opener, that's for sure.