It is hard to argue the fact that 'I' is one of the most anticipated movies of the year 2015, even though 2015 just started. While there are good reasons with Vikram's performance being the most important, another reason is that it's directed by Shankar, one of the most famous directors of South India. But, does the movie deliver?
Good points first. For the whole length of the movie, along with many other details, there was one thought I kept entertaining. Well, the movie is long (189 minutes) but I was not able to find any actor who could have taken up the role of the protagonist of this movie but Vikram. He completely and utterly nailed it. The passion with which he portrayed the three shades is rare, to say the least. Not just the tiresome make up and prosthetic work he had to put up with, but also emoting distinguishably amidst all the different shades was a herculean task. He brings credibility to a role that did take up nearly three movies worth' work of acting (just a rough guess). Also, the promos, the trailers and the interviews by the team that explain and highlight the amount of time and dedication Vikram put into the role. Then there is the Cinematography, which was technically brilliant. P.C.Sreeram must be lauded for such an effort. All the songs were gorgeous and were shot either in beautiful locations or elaborate and breathtaking sets. The music by A.R. Rahman impresses. The production values by V. Ravichandran are grand. Art direction was fabulous. The movie does shine on a technical front. The fights were choreographed very well too.
Now that those are talked about, lets get to the next section. The problems. Shankar has always made his mark as a director who has social awareness and makes lavish movies, never compromising on bringing his vision to life. None of his movies were about petty and narrow-minded revenge dramas and 'youth' topics. His broad vision always had a lot of plot points and a simple yet effective screenplay that took things right to the viewer. In other words, there was always a good amount of substance justifying the style. However, some critics say that after Sivaji, his graph has seen a decline, which could mean that Shankar could be actively trying to make movies out of his comfort zone. In doing so, any director must be careful not to tread the same road trodden in many movies before, much less someone as famed as Shankar. But in 'I' there were many scenes in its 3 hour runtime that I had the feeling 'any director could have come up with this idea'. The only thread that distinctly had the director's trademark vibe of high melodrama along with an equally foreign idea of justifying the role was the hunchback(diseased) character. Everything else, not so much. The storyline of love/revenge along with the hinted look of 'beauty and the beast' the movie do not make any impact and is also predictable. Except for the lead actress and a couple of others, none of the characters were utilized well and were fleshed out. Making the story more intricate and broad instead of just making it a high voltage personal revenge drama could have steered the movie towards a much better position as an achievement and not just commercially.
All that said, 'I' makes a good movie not for the story but for the performance of Vikram. No one else could have been crazy enough to accept the role in the first place, whatever the reason. You may watch it.
Good points first. For the whole length of the movie, along with many other details, there was one thought I kept entertaining. Well, the movie is long (189 minutes) but I was not able to find any actor who could have taken up the role of the protagonist of this movie but Vikram. He completely and utterly nailed it. The passion with which he portrayed the three shades is rare, to say the least. Not just the tiresome make up and prosthetic work he had to put up with, but also emoting distinguishably amidst all the different shades was a herculean task. He brings credibility to a role that did take up nearly three movies worth' work of acting (just a rough guess). Also, the promos, the trailers and the interviews by the team that explain and highlight the amount of time and dedication Vikram put into the role. Then there is the Cinematography, which was technically brilliant. P.C.Sreeram must be lauded for such an effort. All the songs were gorgeous and were shot either in beautiful locations or elaborate and breathtaking sets. The music by A.R. Rahman impresses. The production values by V. Ravichandran are grand. Art direction was fabulous. The movie does shine on a technical front. The fights were choreographed very well too.
Now that those are talked about, lets get to the next section. The problems. Shankar has always made his mark as a director who has social awareness and makes lavish movies, never compromising on bringing his vision to life. None of his movies were about petty and narrow-minded revenge dramas and 'youth' topics. His broad vision always had a lot of plot points and a simple yet effective screenplay that took things right to the viewer. In other words, there was always a good amount of substance justifying the style. However, some critics say that after Sivaji, his graph has seen a decline, which could mean that Shankar could be actively trying to make movies out of his comfort zone. In doing so, any director must be careful not to tread the same road trodden in many movies before, much less someone as famed as Shankar. But in 'I' there were many scenes in its 3 hour runtime that I had the feeling 'any director could have come up with this idea'. The only thread that distinctly had the director's trademark vibe of high melodrama along with an equally foreign idea of justifying the role was the hunchback(diseased) character. Everything else, not so much. The storyline of love/revenge along with the hinted look of 'beauty and the beast' the movie do not make any impact and is also predictable. Except for the lead actress and a couple of others, none of the characters were utilized well and were fleshed out. Making the story more intricate and broad instead of just making it a high voltage personal revenge drama could have steered the movie towards a much better position as an achievement and not just commercially.
All that said, 'I' makes a good movie not for the story but for the performance of Vikram. No one else could have been crazy enough to accept the role in the first place, whatever the reason. You may watch it.