At some point, I will go see The Hangover Part III or whatever they are calling it and I will probably enjoy the hell out of it. I have learned that bringing an attitude to art ruins the fuck out of it, and I happened to catch the first Hangover film when I actually wanted to see a film without being the least bit self-involved.
Gawker found a hipster to review the film, and guess what? The hipster doesn't like it.
The problem with the entire review is this line:
This a franchise that believes that anyone who isn't a straight white male is inherently funny (the penis of a person that audiences and characters were led to believe was a biological woman was the sight gag of the second film), and that variations of hilarity within straight white males come from where they sit on the dickhead scale.
Zach Galifianakis is the central character in the entire movie; it revolves around his weirdness. He is the sole creator of the notion that all of the other characters want to be in the adventure with him. He refuses to address any of his issues by way of updating himself, and the third film starts with an intervention. This occurs because of how he carried himself in the previous two films. But the thing is--he's anything but a straight white male. He is and then he isn't, is what I'm saying. He has none of the characteristics of his co-stars, and yet he's almost exactly like them in terms of age, race, and all of that unimportant nonsense. Focusing on race is Hipster Criticism 101--it allows the hipster to find a convenient way to project a hate crime onto something beyond his comprehension.
There's also another aspect to the criticism of films like this that bugs me. People who don't have any friends tend to hate buddy films. That's a generalization, of course, but it's one that makes sense.
And the sight gag of the second film was, and always will be, the Maori tattoo on the face of Ed Helms. Period. End of story.