There is no doubt that Shankar has got flair and his own style but it is the repetitiveness that gets to you. There are scenes that go on and on till the cows and buffaloes come home and what can be said in five minutes takes more than twice the amount of time.

Director Shankar tries to follow the same path to success that he did with Robot, but fails miserably. Skipping this misfiring magnum opus is the only suitable course of action.

If you really want to watch I, go to theaters just for Vikram’s performance and Amy’s looks.

I has the merits to entertain. It may have started slow but it will pick up due to positive word of mouth and end up doing fair business in the final tally.

More brilliant than the film is Vikram’s multi-personality performance which holds the film together, loopholes and all.Vikramembraces the grotesque as possessively as the glorious.It doesn’t matter which language you speak or think in. Just go for I.It speaks the language of cinema.

There’s a lesson in I for makers of masala movies everywhere: Big-budget commercial films don’t have to be lazy, mindless enterprises; you can bring big ideas and apply craft. I may be far from perfect, but for the most part it’s pretty entertaining stuff.

Shankar’s latest a complete disaster! ‘I’ really want to know how a film with such an interesting premise ended up as such a watered-down version. Too bad, really!

Shankar balances a social critique along with technical gimmickry and here the message centres about our obsession with physical perfection and beauty. Vikram’s transformation from a man in prime physical shape to a boil-covered hunchback is truly grotesque, as are the rest of the changes in the film. The big bugbear for the film remains its run time of 3 hours and ten minutes. Hopefully, the technical wizardry will be enough to make the audience forgive this lapse …

I is too long, too stupid and too regressive to be entertaining. If you’re determined to watch it, make sure you see the Tamil original and not the awkward, Hindi-dubbed version, regardless of whether or not you understand Tamil. It’s a little longer than the Hindi, but infinitely more fun, especially if you’re with Shankar and/or Vikram fans. The wiser option, however, would be to wait for someone to put I’s best moments on YouTube.

Shankar’s magic may be missing in his latest edition. However, the movie has enough merits to warrant a watch at the theatres.

While the movie is good technically, its content is just average.

I is definitely not the best of Shankar, but still it is a one-time watch.

In more than half a decade of Tamil movie industry it has always been observed that the weight of expectations vested on a movie is directly proportional to the disenchantment of the average movie-watching public. But ‘I’ breaks this trend majestically. ‘I’ is definitely not the best script among Shankar’s films but the average script is lifted by the extraordinary performance of Vikram & impressive technical wizardry.

Made with a humongous budget of Rs 180 crores (worth every penny), ‘I’ is certainly a big screen experience. Watch it to believe it. And yes, watch it for Vikram, not just for the fabulous actor that he’s but also for the fact that he’s literally gone out on a limb for this role.

In spite of its exquisite presentation, I is nothing but an ordinary story that could have been presented in a much better manner had it kept its pace up. The film is completely driven by Vikram’s performance and it is worth your watch if you are fan of this character actor. If it would have been a little less than three hours, I would have found it much better…

I, which is basically targeted at the South Indian film industry, will have to depend heavily on the word-of-mouth in order to do good business in Hindi film circuit. A very special mention to the make-up (Sean Foot and Davina Lamont) and also to the team which has done the film’s VFX work.

On the whole, go for I only if you are a big fan of extravagant masala films.

I is anything but uninventive car-smashing, doppelganger-farting Bollywood fare. Shankar’s brand of escapism usually clocks Thalaivaa on a scale of 1 to Tim Burton, but this is an adrenalinfueled and, hopefully, permanent step up for him.

While the waif-like Amy looks mesmerising, Vikram bowls you over with a heart-wrenching performance whether he is handsome or disfigured. Santhanam provides the perfect comic relief. The first fight in a local gymnasium and the BMX bike fight on Chinese rooftops are an adrenaline fix. This is pure escapist fare but will resonate with those who read fairy tales at bedtime.

The only high point of Shankar’s I (in Tamil) is Vikram’s enthralling performance, first as a rustic body builder and later as a disfigured hunchback.

I is not a great film and you are bound to be disappointed if you go in with huge expectations. But Vikram’s I is far from bad film. Watch it as a regular entertainer and the chances are there that you would end up liking it. I is a visual spectacle which should not be missed on big screen. Watch it for Vikram’s efforts, Shankar’s grandeur and some amazing make up work by WETA.

Shankar’s I is not to be missed, it should be watched in all its glory on the silver screen. Definitely, a treat for Pongal.

A lot of parts of the story seem juvenile which can’t be ignored because the scale is so large and so are the expectations. Full marks to Shankar’s vision and Vikram’s acting and that’s reason enough to watch I.

Watch this film for Vikram’s exuberant performance as – a model, a beast, a body builder and a hunchback. You don’t want to miss this film!

Toting up ‘I’, the visuals dazzle your eyes, Vikram’s sterling performance breaks your heart and shivers your soul.

As much we enjoy Shankar’s manifestation of opulence there are staggering moments in the movie that could have changed its outlook.
Ergo, I capitalizes too much on Vikram’s energetic performances yet crosses the boundary line in style.

‘I’ is definitely, a film that touches the pinnacle of technical extravaganza and special thanks to Weta Studios for an incredulous effort. But, a convincing screenplay and inclusion of newfangled rhetoric thinking could have kept it on pars with ‘Enthiran’.

Given the lavish budget, I is visually grandiose and that’s not a surprise. But the visuals don’t make up for the weak script. Even AR Rahman’s music doesn’t make much of a difference but for remaining mostly soothing and melodic. Returning after a gap of three years, Shankar should’ve gauged the pulse of the audiences who now prefer short stories over a three-hour film.

A story this pulpy should have been way more exciting.

Ultimately, it’s an amalgamation of Masters at play which works to a larger extent because of their huge efforts.