The boys are back in town (if Las Vegas is your town), but from the majority of critics' reactions, it looks like they should have stayed home.
Currently in theaters, "" reunites the Wolfpack of Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis as they head off to Sin City for another trip of mayhem, madness and debauchery.
But apparently critics aren't ready to take another trip with them, as most had pretty negative reactions to the final film in the brotastic comedy. The third installment has a lackluster 26 percent rating on movie aggegator site, Rotten Tomatoes. Below is a roundup of some of the most scathing reviews. Guess most people were still hungover from the first two installments.
Stephen Holden, The New York Times: "These superannuated party animals try vainly to stir up some enthusiasm during a return visit to Las Vegas, the site of the first Hangover movie. But their heart isn't in it," wrote Holden, who called it a "dull, lazy walkthrough" that has "a claim to be the year's worst star-driven movie."
Bilge Ebiri, Vulture.com: "It truly is surprising how barren the movie is of humor. There's one funny exchange early on that relates to Stu's sexual travails in the second 'Hangover' film; later, there are some bits involving Melissa McCarthy as a pawn-shop owner who sparks some chemistry with Alan. And that's about it. Indeed, the film's unfunniness may be the joke."
Kyle Smith, New York Post: "The good news is that 'The Hangover Part III' isn't a rerun like the second episode. The bad news is everything else. For all the promise of mayhem and WTF moments, the final episode hits you with all the force of a warm can of O'Doul's."
Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times: "I'm not sure who let the dogs out this time, but they should be made to pay....Or forced to suffer the fate of the giraffe in the ubiquitous trailers -- the one whose long, lovely neck won't clear the low clearance bridge. The giraffe is only a portent of bad things to come."
Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly: "As a Sin City romp, it's too tame. And as a 'very special' ode to Alan's journey to responsibility, it's a miscalculation of what fans want from a series featuring a smoking monkey."
Michael O'Sullivan, The Washington Post: "...this third 'Hangover' is dull. Coupled with its logic headaches, it left me feeling like I needed an Alka-Seltzer Plus. Anything to add a little fizzy relief to these flat and unfunny proceedings.
Claudia Puid, USA Today: "It's more a road movie with action elements than a comedy, and the debauchery of the first two films is missing."
Stephen Farber, The Hollywood Reporter: "Young viewers looking for unbridled raunch will be sadly disappointed, and so will other moviegoers expecting more than a few wan chuckles. This picture is like a brightly colored balloon with all the comic air seeping out."
David Fear, Time Out New York: "Humor feels like an afterthought: Galifianakis' clueless manchild act, always a winner, feels pitifully DOA, while Cooper and Helms, having realized they could play their respective douche-dude and nebbish roles in their sleep, proceed to do just that."
Though, not everyone thought the movie was terrible; a few critics were apparently able to eek out a few chuckles out of the film.
Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: "But the pleasant surprise of 'The Hangover Part III' is a belated bout of adulthood has only made the extended-adolescent characters funnier. The result is a more traditional but more hysterical crowd-pleaser."
Christy Lemire, AP: "[Director Todd] Phillips and co-writer Craig Mazin have placed the unusual challenge on themselves of trying to create something bold and new while simultaneously remaining true to the trilogy and wrapping it all up in a satisfying way. They succeed somewhat; simply trying to be creative marks a huge improvement from part two."