The much-anticipated Aadu 3 is here, and it leaves one with mixed feelings. A film that excels in production quality and acting falls short in screenplay and comedy—the very elements that gave the series its cult status. The Midhun Manuel Thomas directorial had everything going for it, but whether it truly lives up to the hype is debatable.This time, Shaji Pappan and his team are on yet another chaotic chase, with a time-travel, multiple-timeline plot twist. In a film that opts for a non-linear narrative, the main cast appears in dual roles. Jayasurya plays the iconic Shaji Pappan as well as a local king, Padmanabha Thamburan. Vinayakan appears as Azam Khan in the second timeline, while others take on similarly important roles—Sunny Wayne, for instance, plays a British officer. On the acting front, the entire main cast delivers.The team has also done complete justice to the 1700s timeline in terms of costumes, styling, and elaborate sets— forget historical accuracy, the art works. There is clearly a lot of effort put in, but there seems to be some misjudgment in understanding what might work for such a well-loved franchise.The main timeline follows the familiar Aadu universe, while the other major timeline dates back to the 1700s. The transitions between the timelines are handled well, but there is a noticeable lack of excitement until the very last moment. The time-travel concept, while intriguing, only serves as a teaser towards the latter part, hinting at a more exciting continuation. However, that doesn’t help this part stay afloat.The songs by Shaan Rahman and the background score by Dawn Vincent work well, and there are a few comic dialogues and moments—like the High Range Che Guevara reference—that make you laugh heartily. However, apart from these, there is little that stands out as worthy of a third installment in the franchise. The supposed comedy, unfortunately, feels forced in places, and there is little spontaneity or organic humor in situations that are meant to be funny.The length of the film also feels unwarranted, given that this part serves more as a build-up than a film in itself. Even when evaluated through the lens of a spoof, it is not inventive enough.