Someone want to post the ending? I will not see this in the theater and maybe not at all.

I'll post it for ya

The end credits sequence should have had them all look proper and clean cut when they all get out of beds as they all play Monopoly on the bed which and high-five one another on a great night sleeping.

I loved the first and liked the second well enough. However, I found this one to be pretty disappointing. I am not sure what it was, but they just didn't seem to click together like before. I missed that crazy Wolf Pack vibe. I am doing a terrible job explaining it, but I missed it damn it.

I think that is why the post credits scene seemed so funny to me. They ever so briefly seemed like the guys I enjoyed laughing at in the first two movies.

It wasn't horrible, but definitely disappointing. I sort of left feeling like I would've been better served going to see Fast & Furious 6 again.

It really did.

I loved the first movie, enjoyed the second and really didn't care for this one. At all. it's almost as if they went for an action/comedy blend and then really skimped on both aspects. The theater my wife and I were in was extremely quiet throughout. There were a few chuckles here and there, but not much else to speak of.

Saw this today. Used the $8 off coupon from buying Due Date on BD. Paid $1.50 total.

Anyways, I thought it was okay. Got a few laughs out of it. I appreciate that they tried to do something different here even though there really wasn't any story left to tell with these characters.

Way too much Chow. I could only handle that character in small doses and alot of the plot was about him. The movie should have been called "The Hangover Part III: Chow's Revenge"

Phil and Stu were my favorite characters of the 3 movies. It's funny how Doug once again gets relegated to another small meaningless role.

The whole Alan and Cassie romance was kind of gross IMO, especially the whole lollipop scene.

Also, in the 3 movies, has Phil's wife had any significant dialogue?

Overall I would give it a C+ Glad it's over. Will get the BD when it's under $15 to complete the trilogy.

C+ sounds about right. Even the completist in me can't justify buying this one to complete my set though.

Agreed. I said it earlier but the amount of hate that people have towards this film is kind of ridiculous if you ask me. I do think the first film is the strongest and it didn't need to be turned into a trilogy but whatever. The Hangover Part II is the weakest link and is basically the first film done over. I think that The Hangover Part III redeemed the series a bit. It wasn't perfect but I thought it was a decent wrap up and I still liked the fact that the series went in a different direction. Plus it was kind of a damned if they do damned if they don't situation because if they made the film about them getting wasted again and trying to find someone people would have bitched that it was the same, but making it different people got upset over too. The main thing that bothered me was Alan being overly annoying (I thought more so than the first two honestly and that the shtick was old by this one).

I wouldn't say Hangover 3 redeemed the series. I don't think it knew if it wanted to be a very black comedy or an action-comedy or something entirely differeny. It felt very unrefined. It was better than Part II, but then again, how difficult is that?

I like the different direction idea, but I don't see how they could've pulled it off any other way. Part II felt like a remake of the first one so if they did it again it'd feel like a remake of a remake.

Chow had entirely too much screen time but then again at this point in his career any screen time of Ken Jeong is too much.

Well maybe redeemed wasn't quite the right word. It was a decent sequel after a so-so Part II and an overall decent wrap up to the series I thought. Granted it wasn't harder to be better than Part II (which I don't hate but is my least favorite of the three) because all it really had to do was come up with something that was a bit more on the original side. To me it seemed like it was mostly going for action-comedy.

Chow was funniest in the first film since he was only briefly used but I didn't mind him in this too badly I guess. Maybe the worst part of it was that the story seemed pretty driven by his character but overall I didn't think his character detracted too much from the film.

I am stunned to admit I actually liked it. I thought it tied up everything really well. I will never see part 2 again but this probably.

Oh and I love how the wave of "new" members this site has suddenly got can't spell.

I finally got around to renting this last night. After the shitfest that was The Hangover II I was expecting the absolute worst from part 3. Surprisingly I actually enjoyed it. Sure the laugh out loud humor was mostly missing but I cracked up at everyone's small reactions to the events unfolding around them, for instance when Chow was singing karaoke and Phil says "what the fuck am I watching?"

It felt more like a lighthearted, humorous caper flick than a full out slapstick comedy but I had fun with it. The only aspect I didn't really care for was how much of an asshole Alan had turned into. I kept expecting Phil or Stu to finally tell him to go fuck himself but they never did. I prefered his character in the first film where he was just a dimwitted lovable loser.

Yep, I think that the Alan character is really the weakest link of the films in general (especially the sequels). He started out as a lovable loser in the first film who provided some funny moments but went to being flat out annoying and an asshole in the sequels. A lot of comedies tend to do this with actors, especially comedic actors like Galifianakis, Ferrell, etc. They get a positive response out of a an actor's performance in a film and suddenly the studios think they need more of that and have to be able to top it somehow so they go too far over the top and it winds up hurting the character/actor and film in the long run.