Final part in ‘Hangover’ an intensely different experience from predecessors

Something is seriously off with “The Hangover: Part III.”

Trailers and featurettes (and expectations) would lead you to believe it would be something similar to 2011’s “The Hangover: Part II,” in which it would be a rehash of the original, critic-defying raunchy comedy that started it all. Instead, we’re taken down a surprisingly dark road surrounded by mafia-life action and violence rather than the lewd and inappropriate comedy to which we’ve become accustomed. It’s a striking departure from the series’ well-worn narrative, and it leaves you conflicted: Should you be excited for the unexpected diversion, or should you be upset because this may not be what you expected?

To understand what was expected of the final part in “The Hangover” trilogy, you need to have seen the previous installments. When Part II came out, no one was surprised to find out it was a lazy rip-off of the 2009 original, in which a group of guys gets outrageously drunk, black out and try to piece together their night of debauchery (usually with some hilarious antics along the way). And that was OK, because it worked. So even through the stars and directors said this one was going to be different (and the last one in the series, which is a bold statement in a world of sequels), no one went it thinking it was going to be that different. Why fix what isn’t broken, right?

So understand the surprise when, instead of director Todd Phillips utilizing his assets — the expectation and acceptance of raunchy comedy, solid main and wonderful supporting casts, the ever-awkward Zach Galifianakis and the ability to end the series on a high note — he chose to shockingly alter course and throw us in a sea of all-too-realistic violence, aggressive destruction and a confusing discourse of emotions.

The opening scenes — in which a giraffe is decapitated — leads you to believe this installment is going to be funnier than it actually ends up being. There’s death and talk of treatment centers soon after, and it all feels far too serious for what’s supposed to be a comedy about drinking too much and making poor life choices. In fact, there’s not even all that much drinking in this bad boy. Which makes everything else far too sobering to deal with.

The movie begins with the death of resident odd man Alan’s (Galifianakis) father. The whole situation is far darker than you would initially believe, and it leaves you wondering when the authentic laughs are coming. The problem here, though, is that when the laughs do come, they are awkward, out of place and usually disturbing rather than just offensive or outrageous. Alan — known for intentional/unintentional drugging of his friends and boy-in-a-man’s-body mentality — is supposed to the wild card of the group. Here, he’s more a destructive entity, causing chaos and anger in his wake. Hence the treatment center: It’s well-known Alan isn’t what most would consider normal, but it’s always been considered more or less harmless. Now we’re talking about mental issues and calming places in Arizona. It’s an unnatural leap in logic and plot structure.

In order to coax him willingly, the other members of the wolfpack — Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Doug (Justin Bartha) — offer to take Alan to the center. This is where you’d expect the infamous chaos and drugging to begin, because — thanks to multiple trailers — you know the gang ends up in Vegas. However, comedic expectations are quickly dashed as the guys are held at gunpoint by Marshall (John Goodman), a mobster with a needle-thin connection to the first movie. You see, he’s out for revenge. He wants Mr. Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who just escaped from a Thai prison. Doug is taken as a hostage, with Marshall threatening to kill him if the Wolfpack doesn’t find Chow.

The rest of the film builds off this threat, but in ways unfunny and cringe-worthy. This is supposed to be a movie about hilarious, unlikely decisions and consequences. Instead, it’s dismal and dispiriting, what with murder and extortion running rampant. The chase takes the guys from the seedy streets of Tijuana to the highly stylized corridor in Vegas, but it feels as if you are just to feel bad for Stu and Phil because they are going through hell and just don’t know what to do about it. There are some grimly funny moments along the way, but they fail to capture the zaniness of the original.

And as for Chow, he’s a humorous character, but there was no reason to give him so much screen time and such an expansion of character. He’s referred to as a cancer, but you’re confused as to what kind of evil he actually is. He’s crazy and sex-obsessed, with an unhealthy love of cocaine — and he also happens to be colorblind and dyslexic — and it’s just too much, too often, too crazy. The goal may have been to portray him as fluid, even dynamic, but it’s just messy and schizophrenic.

Speaking of schizophrenia, yes, there is a moral here: something about Alan and growing up, but it’s about useless to everyone. The more exciting revelation involves a hilarious connection between Galifianakis and Melissa McCarthy’s pawn shop owner character. It’s just the type of awkward we’re used to. (Just like the movie’s final, after-credit scene. Stickaround for it. It may bring back better memories.)

Still, even with that seemingly last-thought addition of familiar humor, it’s not enough. Or it may be too much. It’s hard to tell. Either way, this isn’t the Wolfpack you know and love. If that’s not worthy of an actual hangover, nothing is.

Two hangover-inducing stars out of five.

“The Hangover” review
“The Hangover Part II” review

Following Silver Screening Reviews on Twitter or like us on Facebook.

From left, Justin Bartha as Doug, Zach Galfianakis as Alan, Ed Helms as Stu and Bradley Cooper as Phil in “The Hangover Part III.”” (Photo credit: AP photo by Warner Bros. Pictures)