Bits and pieces glued together, but it works well enough

Rating: 7/10 (2 June 2013)

When "Hangover II" came out some people we're pretty angry about it, mainly because they felt like they had paid for the same movie twice. Same plot, same jokes, same "surprising" twists, I still enjoyed it but at the same time I wasn't blind for its lack of creativity. Luckily, the third one is very different. Somewhat less luckily, this movie is just all over the place. The other ones have clichéd plot(s), but at least they were as coherent as this genre is ever going to get and had a clear structure to them. This one well, even after you've seen it entirely you're still not sure what the hell it was about. It just doesn't gel that well, it's very fragmentaric. On the other hand though, it does do something that's rare for a part 3 these days: it actually adds something to the franchise. Not only does it have a lot of funny new set pieces (the burglary is definitely one of the best parts of the entire franchise), but it even sorta develops its characters and provides some very decent closure. I particularly liked what they did with Alan, he isn't just a gimmick anymore but actually tries to change his ways here and there (if he feels like it, obviously). The ambiguous relation between the Wolfpack and Mr. Chow is also explored very well, the question whether Chow is a friend or foe pretty much fuels whatever little story there is. I also liked the throwbacks to the previous ones, this can be seen as a standalone movie but probably shouldn't. And lastly, John Goodman is incredibly under-used but at least he's there for a brief while to be hilarious as ever. If you hated the other ones, you'll probably hate this. If you liked the other ones, well I honestly don't know. All I can say is I quite enjoyed it.