copyrightFantastic Beasts 3 Movierulz - Fantastic Beasts 3 2022 Telugu Dubbed Movie Review in 3Movierulz
Fantastic Beasts 3 Movierulz - Fantastic Beasts 3 2022 Telugu Dubbed Movie Review in 3Movierulz - Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore is the third film in the Fantastic Beasts saga, with two more to come. There is nothing fantastic about the new movie. The story is dull, the characters are dull, it's visually unimaginative, and there are few real secrets to speak of. While its predecessor, The Crimes of Grindelwald, was built around a very questionable climax, this one falls apart much sooner, to the point of having to introduce a whole new magical conception to justify it all.
Warner Bros. seems to have regrets when it comes to this saga. All of the posters downplay the Fantastic Beasts portion of the title in favor of the subtitle Dumbledore's Secrets, but since it's still a linear franchise, it can't afford to kick its main characters. One year after the events of the first film, bumbling magizoologist Newt Scamander is back, as are his stone-faced brother Theseus and their non-magical friend, the enchanting baker Jacob Kowalski, though none of them really have a reason for being. The larger plot, about the rise of the fascist wizard Gellert Grindelwald and the troubles of the young Albus Dumbledore, has blown them out of the water and barely requires your input in legible form. The regular of the series, Tina Goldstein, does not appear in this film beyond a fleeting cameo, despite having co-starred in the last two, and her reduced role does not make an iota of difference. On the other hand, given the way the film is constructed, you could easily remove the main character, Dumbledore, from the equation and little, would change. It's a bad sign if not a single character feels like an integral part of your fantasy movie. It's worse not even trying to justify including any of them, but the wizard roster isn't the only thing that feels like it's on autopilot.
The only mildly significant breakthrough comes in the opening scene, in which Dumbledore explicitly professes that he was once in love with Grindelwald. From there, things go downhill. The very act of following the story quickly becomes a passive affair. Some people's motivations become clear, albeit only through verbal explanations long after the fact, and at least three main characters are at the center of 180-degree turns that seem to be triggered by the flip of a switch. One of these characters even takes a second turn; the reasoning is just as flimsy. Steve Kloves, who wrote all but one of the Harry Potter films, returns to the franchise and shares screenwriting credit with J.K. Rowling, so the references to the earlier movies come in larger numbers, but the script often feels like it was written by a plot-twist-generating algorithm.
The magical baby deer is representative of some core and persistent problems, even if it barely appears on the screen. On the one hand, it serves a typically Rowling purpose, namely a completely logistical one that sidesteps the need for a recognizable ethos. In a creative decision that mirrors the climax of his novel The Deathly Hallows. Numerous allusions are made to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and the specter of Donald Trump is not far from the scope of the film, but he has no real politics to speak of, as it is only nominally about people choosing to support an authoritarian. He never needs Grindelwald to express what he believes through words or actions, as the choice comes down to the details of a mystical ceremony. rather than something akin to a real-world process where people's voices and opinions matter. There rarely seems to be a real "magic world" beyond the confines of the set, let alone one with real perspectives and political pieces in motion.
There is no real goal in the story. There are only self-contained scenes between which the characters regroup before separating again. Secrets of Dumbledore is almost always divided into half a dozen subplots, none of which seem to matter unless they take place somewhere close to Grindelwald. The scattered story pieces rarely make sense, and only serve to keep the characters busy until the elections are approaching.
Yates is just visually restrained by the fact that there isn't much magic in this story.
In another case where technicality substitutes for the character, Dumbledore's little item from the previous film quickly becomes a convenient substitute for the real thing. doubts and complicated feelings, and stop being a hindrance just as quickly and conveniently. There are, however, a small handful of moments where director David Yates seems to have a dramatic interest in Dumbledore and Jacob, but neither they nor any of the other characters have anything resembling an interesting track record. screen long enough to have one, even though the film bears his name and is over 140 minutes long; Mikkelsen is a worthy addition, but Grindelwald similarly suffers. Yates, who directed the last four Potter films, also finds himself visually restricted by the fact that there isn't much magic in this story. For the most part, whether the story is set in the United States or Germany, or Bhutan, there is little difference between magical and non-magical spaces and the beasts aren't either. so fantastic A bigger deer, a bigger scorpion, etc.
All of the locations are plain and gray, and while the muted visual palette works occasionally, it leaves most of the film looking and feeling monotonous even when it should. be exciting. There is so much dead air that it seems like it should be full of caprice, so many silences that it seems like it should be full of wonder or even supernatural danger. Instead, everything seems incomplete, as if the creators of the series wanted to leave their magical premise behind, but had nothing to replace it with.
Jacob's role, rather than being rooted in his story, is simply to be a POV character for longtime adult viewers. Therein lies the film's fatal flaw: it seems aimed at adult Potter fans despite being clearly juvenile in conception. Despite focusing on politics, it is completely apolitical, with a plot that focuses on three possible wizard leaders without framing or expressing any of their beliefs, including those of its central villain. A constant fuss is made about why Grindelwald is the wrong kind of leader, but in Rowling's world, there is no right kind of leader by contrast. The correct leader is simply the least disruptive.
Dumbledore's Secrets maintains the continuity of the saga, but only in the most superficial sense. He brings back familiar characters like Newt, Theseus, and Yusuf Kama, but none of them behave as if Grindelwald had recently murdered someone they love. Few characters have anything resembling real human emotions or motivations, because their purpose is not to be real people, but rather to help in the slow progress of a pilot whose pieces can be reassembled in virtually any combination without the big picture really changing. As for the "secret" of the title, the less said about it the better, but if a spoiler about it were found on the internet, it would probably read like a practical joke under its utter inconsequentiality.
Though Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore finally makes Dumbledore canonically gay, it doesn't do much more, remaining scattered in half a dozen inconsequential subplots for most of its run. It's drab-looking and feels like it was made by people who want to outgrow its magical premise, yet the series refuses to have anything resembling adult politics or perspectives.