What makes it different from others?

Just perfect...

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

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

Some film-makers form a trilogy to tell a tale, finding it a unique way to fashion a story and give the beginning, middle and end enough time and breathing space to flesh out on their own, forming stand- alone pieces that work just as well on their own in the process. Others, like The Hangover helmer Todd Phillips, use it to squeeze every drop of money out of a proved formula and fool an audience into thinking that, given the success of a previous instalment, they're in for a guaranteed good time. Only The Hangover Part II was terrible, and Part III is even worse, to the point where the franchise is barely recognisable from the hilarious and charming surprise it was back in 2009.Ditching the formula that saw our three bumbling heroes wake up from a particularly heavy night in a variety of terrible states to find that one of their part is missing and no memory of what went down, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) are instead roped into a plot involving an escaped-from-prison Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) and the gangster looking for him, Marshall (John Goodman). But also ditched is any sense of humour or even any actual jokes, and in its place comes cruelty and distastefulness. Opening with Alan towing a giraffe home on the back of a trailer, events take an expected unfunny turn as the animal is decapitated and Alan is convinced that he needs help. It's on their way to rehab that they find themselves confronted by Marshall and Black Doug (Mike Epps), the latter returning from the first film.Conveniently brushing Doug (Justin Bartha) out of the way again as Marshall holds him captive so the threesome can try and generate some laughs, The Hangover Part III becomes a pedestrian bore; a series of set-pieces that quickly run out of steam. In an attempt to make up for the clear lack of inspiration, Chow's role has been beefed up even more, but Jeong's hyperactive and excruciatingly annoying shtick gets old very quickly. A scene near the end sees Chow parachuting through Las Vegas screaming obscenities, and I was left scratching my head at just how the sleeper-hit of 2009 ended up at this point. When there's a rare chuckle to be had, it comes from Galifianakis and franchise-newcomer Melissa McCarthy, who at least manage to lend a little heart to what is quite frankly an unpleasant 100 minutes.

Hangover part 3 is one of my favourite comedy films along with Dumb and Dumber and it's sequel Dumb and Dumber TO, the Ted films, Stepbrothers and Due Date. It is not the best comedy film but it still has lots of laughs. The film is a bit strange because despite the title there is no hangover unless you count the post credits.Set four years after the previous film Doug gets kidnapped by Marshall a gangster after Chow stole his stolen gold and now the rest of the Wolfpack thanks to Alan getting drugs from Black Doug in the first film have 3 days to find Chow or else Doug dies.The film was as I said quite funny especially with Alan and Chow. Alan in my opinion is more or less the film version of Peter Griffin as both are obese, dim-wits, laid back, immature and childish but Alan I think is slightly more intelligent but just by a fraction. The film was funny at the start especially the funeral scene and Alan doesn't seem to give a damn that he actually caused his dad Sid to die due to his antics. Chow more or less stole the show and the film more or less was mostly about him just like how the Tigger Movie focused on Tigger.The film could have ended a bit better though especially as it is the finale of the series but still a funny film to watch.

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.