Director Shankar's formula is simple yet very unique. He keeps you so spellbound with visuals and joy and craziness that you meekly accept the lack of logic in several places and yes, a bit of tackiness too. The intriguing screenplay as the director alternates between the light-hearted past and the thrilling present keeps you engrossed. Actor Vikram seamlessly transforming into three different looks with a modulations that ranges from hollow to suave with a physical transformation that borders inhuman levels, it is the veteran’s show all the way. Makeup artists should be lauded for their outstanding work. Nonetheless, Shankar's I is not to be missed, it should be watched in all its glory on the silver screen.

The only high point of Shankar's I is Vikram's enthralling performance, first as a rustic body builder and later as a disfigured hunchback. But this alone is not enough to take us through a 189-minute romp of silly dances, sillier wit (Santhanam as the hero's sidekick has now become an irritating bore, but the actor does not seem to care about this) and stupid fight sequences (which are an endless pain). And the film has unabashedly borrowed from Victor Hugo's 1831 Gothic novel, Hunchback of Notre-Dame and the traditional fairy tale, Beauty and the Beast, without infusing any novelty into these age-old yarns. Playing the Beauty, Jackson remains as unimpressively wooden as I first saw her in Madrassapattinam and Ek Deewana Tha - barring a couple of teary-eyed scenes in I. But yes, her appeal lies in the dare-bare costumes she sports, and this looks like a major point to draw front-benchers. Some picture postcards locales in virgin China (with titillating Diya) may be a ploy to get us into a sense of exhilaration, but images of burnt or electrocuted men are downright distasteful. And Santhanam's character ridiculing them is in sheer bad taste, or simply juvenile.

I is the name of a perfume and most importantly the virus which makes the dapper Vikram unrecognizable. But that's just for namesake. I is all about Vikram. Only Vikram brings some energy to the proceedings even as you question how two models can do all the commercials in a city. An hour shorter and more time and money spent on writing a story than shooting in exotic locations such as Lexiaguo in China and this could have been fun. In cinema, actors are especially conscious of beauty and physique. So it takes guts for an actor to step forward and become unattractive to the degree of looking sick and deformed. There is a willingness to look a fool such as when Vikram strikes multiple poses to show off his muscles to the tune of Jodhaa Akbar's "Azeem-O-Shaan Shahenshah"; do a fight sequence dressed only in black underwear. It's impressive to see Vikram push the limits and his committed act alone makes the film worth a watch.

Shankar, who wears his commercial tag like a medallion, has an addiction for making big commercial films. While he's been quite successful at it all these years, it has slowly started to have an adverse effect on his films to the extent that even the presence of a bankable star, say Vikram, doesn't add much value to the output. In his much anticipated film I, Shankar proves that only he can take a wafer thin story and turn it into something outlandishly beautiful yet complex, leaving you with an afterthought - "Why can't he ever make smaller films for a change?" 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. All that's big may not necessarily be great. Hope Shankar realises that much better films can be made on a smaller canvas and much lower budget.

Director Shankar’s phenomenal success record is legendary.  He is one of those rare directors, who turns everything he touches into gold. It has been three years since his last film, and expectations have hit the roof for his latest venture -- the mega-budget romantic thriller, titled I. The film does live up to the monumental benchmark set by his previous films in terms of glitz and glamour, but at the heart of this spectacular extravaganza is a predictable revenge saga. The narrative lacks the pace; we usually associate with a Shankar's film. But he does tell a beautiful tale of love sullied by jealousies, greed and anger. The intriguing screenplay as the director alternates between the light-hearted past and the thrilling present keeps you engrossed. Shankar efforts at making them spectacular are evident, but the same cannot be said about the plot, which seems rather tame in comparison. Towards the end, the narrative takes on a humorous turn, which does not quite gel with the gravity of the situation. Shankar's I is definitely a treat for Pongal.

Suspend your disbelief and get into this fairy tale that is told by Shankar (the maker of magnum opuses like Indian, Sivaji-The Boss and Enthiran) on a grandiose canvas. Shot mesmerisingly by PC Sreeram on virgin locales in China and India, with world class CG work, this spectacle works because at the core, it's a romantic-thriller told simplistically. 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.