I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Good movie but grossly overrated

Fresh and Exciting

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Poor script, Zach G is a creep, please let this be the end!

For the record, The Hangover is, in my book, one of the greatest comedies of the 21st century. No one has quite mastered the comedic twist of the whodunnit as well as Todd Phillips did in the original smash. I also did not find Part II to be a disappointment - lots of genuinely funny moments (especially from Stu) even if it was sad to see the writers cling for dear life to their proved formula. Part III should be commended for trying something totally new, and really messing with the formula to try and take this from comedic whodunnit to an edge of your seat, stake-fest. The problem - while striving to be original, they completely forgot about the comedy. So many scenes in this film were just threatening or horrific without any laughs peppered in there - guns in faces, hostages, phone calls. It was more focused on raising the stakes for the Wolfpack then it was making us laugh. This issue was epitomised with John Goodman's "Marshall" character - were they even attempting to make this guy a funny villain? If so, no dice...Marshall could have come straight out of a B-grade mob movie without changing any of his tics or dialogue. Sure, it's cool that this was a dangerous situation but it is still a comedy. Gives us a more simple plot for more laughs. The other major problem was the rudderless arcs of the trilogy's main comic nuclei - Alan and Chow. It was as if the writers sat down and said, "Hey, people love those guys, let's turn them up to 11," without actually considering that what made these two funny was that they were somewhat believable - an, albeit exaggerated, version of the outcast or loony in your own social circles. By taking Alan from a spacey goofball to an aggressive and unhinged mental case made it unbelievable that Phil and Stu would still want anything to do with him. Chow was a hilarious supporting act - as the centre of the film, his profanity got tired fast. This movie also gave itself a glowing pat on the back that it hasn't exactly earned - the constant self-referential gags, throwbacks and winks sort of made it feel like they were disproportionately elevating the status of the first two films. The post credits sequence is the worst example - a victory lap would've been acceptable if all three movies were comic gold. Sadly, only one of them was so filming the Alan-Chow goodbye as if it were a Michael-Fredo kiss and going for a Deathly Hallows-esque "everything connects, this is the epic conclusion" plot really just felt a little congratulatory. Massive points here for taking some tonal risks (which work best with Chow singing 'Hurt' or Alan's reunion with Carlos) but overall they changed a formula without considering why it had become a formula in the first place - it worked.

I am disappointed! This movie doesn't share the same concept as the previous "Hangover" movies, of having to piece together whatever happened the night before. It tries to remain an action-comedy, but most scenes including any action seem unnatural, meaning they are not fully coherent to the plot.

if it is the last (who knows), but it wasn't as funny as the previous ones, yes there are still a lot of laughs and it is entertaining, but the hangover is missing in this one.I don't know if that's what's really missing, the hangover part I mean, but there is something taken away by it not being there. I understand why they have skipped that part and maybe made this more of a closing argument and for that it works out well, but I guess I just wanted more :)We just wanted to be entertained and surprised like the first movie, not in this lets make it more outrages and unbelievable kind of way.