Seethamma Andalu Ramayya Sitralu Review
Suggestions
Can watch again
No
Good for kids
No
Good for dates
No
Wait for OTT
No
Raj Tarun has definitely made sure that he has had variety in his movies. Loads of variety, in fact. In Cinema Soopista Maava, he was a jobless lout who failed Intermediate and fell in love with a girl studying engineering. In Kumari 21F, he was a jobless lout and fell in love with a girl who was a model. In Seetamma Andaalu Ramayya Sitraalu, he is a jobless lout who's failed Intermediate and falls in love with a girl studying MBBS. See how the girls have different careers in each movie?
However, in all these movies, the girls fall for him. In spite of him being a jobless lout, in spite of him being someone who will steal his grandmom's pension to drink away to glory, in spite of him being a guy who proudly proclaims that he will never work a day to earn an honest living, the girl falls in love with him. Like we wondered when we saw Cinema Soopista Mava, we wonder if this is true in real life.
Seetamma Andaalu Ramayya Sitraalu has Raj Tarun playing Ram, a jobless lout who's failed Intermediate. The only thing Ram does sincerely in his life is loving Sita Mahalakshmi (Arthana), who is a medical student and the daughter of the village president as well. Ram helps Sita out in organizing some medical camps in the village, and the moment she takes a selfie with him, he runs around the village shouting that she's fallen for him. This leads to some friction, and Sita slaps him and tells him that she's not in love with him.
Ram then carries the village goddess' palanquin around the village and walks on a bed of coals while Sita is watching (yes - there is a scene where the guy walks on a bed of coals, and this is the year 2016). Lo and behold, Sita sneaks into Ram's house at night and starts applying salve on his burnt feet, and then proclaims undying love for him.
After this brilliant twist, Sita's dad comes to know of this love story, and promptly fixes her wedding with an up-and-coming cricketer. Ram meets the cricketer and inevitably challenges him to a game of cricket - whoever wins gets the girl.
Now, Ram and his bunch of village louts have to play with said cricketer and his bunch of city louts to win Sita's hand. Sita - being the strong & independent woman that she is - walks up to Ram with a bag full of suicide aids and tells him that she will commit suicide the moment he loses the match.
If you are worried about spoiler alerts you may skip this para, but if you are worried about spoiler alerts for this film, we worry even more for you. Anyway, if you haven't puked yet, the climax of the film will certainly help you along. The match ends in a tie, and Sita is actually asked to pick a chit to decide who she'll marry. And Ram prays God that she picks the chit with his name. And in case you haven't yet realized that both chits have Ram's name on them, God help you.
This extremely regressive story has a leading man who you will not root for, a leading lady who is studying to become a doctor but will allow the flip of a coin to decide who she'll marry, loud and irritating characters, and some crude comedy where people are regularly called "pandi penta nayala" and the hero himself is often called "bakka peenuga". The pace is terrible, and the entire first half goes by just with some loud jokes that might evoke a few chuckles - the girl does not like the guy until nearly half of the second half goes by, and after that, a training song and a cricket match later, it is happily ever after. The entire love story and the challenge are extremely unconvincing.
Raj Tarun is loud and enacts his role exactly the way he did his previous ones. There is not an inch of variation in his costumes, dialogue delivery or diction. Arthana is decent but looks the same in all the songs, and is unlikely to ever make it to the top league. The supporting actors are loud and overact as per the requirement. The only one worth mentioning is Shakalaka Shankar, who delivers some laugh-out-loud lines.
The music is repetitive and sounds the same in all the melody songs. They're also all shot at similar-looking locations - almost like they pictured a few montages in different costumes and cut them into two songs on the editing table. The production values are however decent.
Seetamma Andaalu Ramayya Sitraalu is an abomination that will certainly not give Raj Tarun the history-making fourth consecutive success upon debut that he's awaiting. You can sympathize with him, but if you take that to the extent of watching this one, you'll be sympathizing with yourself.
However, in all these movies, the girls fall for him. In spite of him being a jobless lout, in spite of him being someone who will steal his grandmom's pension to drink away to glory, in spite of him being a guy who proudly proclaims that he will never work a day to earn an honest living, the girl falls in love with him. Like we wondered when we saw Cinema Soopista Mava, we wonder if this is true in real life.
Seetamma Andaalu Ramayya Sitraalu has Raj Tarun playing Ram, a jobless lout who's failed Intermediate. The only thing Ram does sincerely in his life is loving Sita Mahalakshmi (Arthana), who is a medical student and the daughter of the village president as well. Ram helps Sita out in organizing some medical camps in the village, and the moment she takes a selfie with him, he runs around the village shouting that she's fallen for him. This leads to some friction, and Sita slaps him and tells him that she's not in love with him.
Ram then carries the village goddess' palanquin around the village and walks on a bed of coals while Sita is watching (yes - there is a scene where the guy walks on a bed of coals, and this is the year 2016). Lo and behold, Sita sneaks into Ram's house at night and starts applying salve on his burnt feet, and then proclaims undying love for him.
After this brilliant twist, Sita's dad comes to know of this love story, and promptly fixes her wedding with an up-and-coming cricketer. Ram meets the cricketer and inevitably challenges him to a game of cricket - whoever wins gets the girl.
Now, Ram and his bunch of village louts have to play with said cricketer and his bunch of city louts to win Sita's hand. Sita - being the strong & independent woman that she is - walks up to Ram with a bag full of suicide aids and tells him that she will commit suicide the moment he loses the match.
If you are worried about spoiler alerts you may skip this para, but if you are worried about spoiler alerts for this film, we worry even more for you. Anyway, if you haven't puked yet, the climax of the film will certainly help you along. The match ends in a tie, and Sita is actually asked to pick a chit to decide who she'll marry. And Ram prays God that she picks the chit with his name. And in case you haven't yet realized that both chits have Ram's name on them, God help you.
This extremely regressive story has a leading man who you will not root for, a leading lady who is studying to become a doctor but will allow the flip of a coin to decide who she'll marry, loud and irritating characters, and some crude comedy where people are regularly called "pandi penta nayala" and the hero himself is often called "bakka peenuga". The pace is terrible, and the entire first half goes by just with some loud jokes that might evoke a few chuckles - the girl does not like the guy until nearly half of the second half goes by, and after that, a training song and a cricket match later, it is happily ever after. The entire love story and the challenge are extremely unconvincing.
Raj Tarun is loud and enacts his role exactly the way he did his previous ones. There is not an inch of variation in his costumes, dialogue delivery or diction. Arthana is decent but looks the same in all the songs, and is unlikely to ever make it to the top league. The supporting actors are loud and overact as per the requirement. The only one worth mentioning is Shakalaka Shankar, who delivers some laugh-out-loud lines.
The music is repetitive and sounds the same in all the melody songs. They're also all shot at similar-looking locations - almost like they pictured a few montages in different costumes and cut them into two songs on the editing table. The production values are however decent.
Seetamma Andaalu Ramayya Sitraalu is an abomination that will certainly not give Raj Tarun the history-making fourth consecutive success upon debut that he's awaiting. You can sympathize with him, but if you take that to the extent of watching this one, you'll be sympathizing with yourself.
SEETHAMMA ANDALU RAMAYYA SITRALU SNAPSHOT
SEETHAMMA ANDALU RAMAYYA SITRALU USER REVIEWS
1 - 6 OF 6 COMMENTS
Josh
Got to reply to your post about the discussion (only a reply button was not available right below your response, hence this separate comment). I agree with those two points that you mention, but this is like saying "language is only to communicate with each other" when it really is "communication plus carrying over the culture to others and generations". My point is movies are part of our popular culture and there is no denying that. But to say that movies are made only for money is a gross understatement. There is something called "kalaaposhana", no jokes, that serves to act as a carrier and disseminator of culture. Audience of 80s were not different from today's audience, only they were nicely, subconciously watching movies like Sankaraabharanam, Saagarasangamam, Meghasandesam and plenty more.
So, my point is that you write the review not for the target audience. That so-called target audience will watch the movie anyway because of a number of reasons, hero worship being the topmost. But your review has to satisfy the entire audience of which the target audience is only a small part. Not only that, you, in my opinion, are a watchdog and a critic in your capacity of a reviewer. Not an easy job.
If you were to not write YOUR opinion, then what I am I reading your review for. I might as well go and find out what the movie is all about - hit of phut!!
So your questions are valid but incomplete. There you go, with my mind cache downloaded here, I can now get back to work in peace.
No brevity here, only clarity! :)
Got to reply to your post about the discussion (only a reply button was not available right below your response, hence this separate comment). I agree with those two points that you mention, but this is like saying "language is only to communicate with each other" when it really is "communication plus carrying over the culture to others and generations". My point is movies are part of our popular culture and there is no denying that. But to say that movies are made only for money is a gross understatement. There is something called "kalaaposhana", no jokes, that serves to act as a carrier and disseminator of culture. Audience of 80s were not different from today's audience, only they were nicely, subconciously watching movies like Sankaraabharanam, Saagarasangamam, Meghasandesam and plenty more.
So, my point is that you write the review not for the target audience. That so-called target audience will watch the movie anyway because of a number of reasons, hero worship being the topmost. But your review has to satisfy the entire audience of which the target audience is only a small part. Not only that, you, in my opinion, are a watchdog and a critic in your capacity of a reviewer. Not an easy job.
If you were to not write YOUR opinion, then what I am I reading your review for. I might as well go and find out what the movie is all about - hit of phut!!
So your questions are valid but incomplete. There you go, with my mind cache downloaded here, I can now get back to work in peace.
No brevity here, only clarity! :)
Hi Jwalakaumudi!
It's been a hectic week and a lovely valentines. I finally just found time to get back to our discussion :)
Before anything at all, let's tell ourselves to not get into binary variables. It is almost never "either this or that". It is most often "bit of this and that". So, I must reiterate that when I mention movies have a business component I do not mean that that is the only component (now, that would be a gross misstatement).
Coming to the rating issue - think of a 100 rupees. The same hundred could mean a Matte finish lipstick to some or a McDowell quarter whiskey to some others. The McDQW audience may not find the lipstick to be worth a hundred and vice versa. If you are a neutral economic entity, how are you going to explain this to either party?
Simple answer is - you don't. You charge the customer on the two parameters viz; how much it cost to make and how much the customer is willing to pay. It doesn't matter what the whiskey drinker thinks of the lipstick.
Similarly, I feel a rating is expected to reflect the innate quality of the movie and also the satisfaction it may provide to its target audience. I can't rate 'Delhi Belly' to be a 4 or a 3 just because it will offend a large part of the population. The film will be rated a 7.5 because its target audience is bound to love it.
But the review will, however, talk about how profane the film is. Alongside the fact that it is riproaringly hilarious. Because the review offers the scope for more communication. There I can afford to speak to the broader audience. Because it isn't a number but more elaborate prose.
And there, it is entirely my opinion. I am writing what I think of the film. Granted a review is not a soliloquy, it is more of a dialogue. But while I am talking to you, I'm still talking my mind. So rest assured, it is always my opinion that you find in the reviews.
Coming to your most emphatic point - the one about shepherding the audience away from 'bad films', I've mentioned earlier that I respect other people's tastes. I can't happily tell someone what they like is trash. That judgement is really not something I believe in.
Instead, what I do is I try to tell folks when I find something awesome in a film. I try to compliment it and let people know. So when a friend texts me saying she took her mother-in-law to Saala Khadoos solely because she liked my review; and they both end up liking it so much they thank me for the recommendation, I think I have indeed done my bit for good cinema.
To complain about misogyny in a masala movie is a bit like lecturing on world hunger in a bachelor party. Instead, I prefer to write highly of female role models which is like talking about Akshaya Patra to anyone who cares to listen.
Once again, thanks for the discussion. It's so much fun articulating these things.
It's been a hectic week and a lovely valentines. I finally just found time to get back to our discussion :)
Before anything at all, let's tell ourselves to not get into binary variables. It is almost never "either this or that". It is most often "bit of this and that". So, I must reiterate that when I mention movies have a business component I do not mean that that is the only component (now, that would be a gross misstatement).
Coming to the rating issue - think of a 100 rupees. The same hundred could mean a Matte finish lipstick to some or a McDowell quarter whiskey to some others. The McDQW audience may not find the lipstick to be worth a hundred and vice versa. If you are a neutral economic entity, how are you going to explain this to either party?
Simple answer is - you don't. You charge the customer on the two parameters viz; how much it cost to make and how much the customer is willing to pay. It doesn't matter what the whiskey drinker thinks of the lipstick.
Similarly, I feel a rating is expected to reflect the innate quality of the movie and also the satisfaction it may provide to its target audience. I can't rate 'Delhi Belly' to be a 4 or a 3 just because it will offend a large part of the population. The film will be rated a 7.5 because its target audience is bound to love it.
But the review will, however, talk about how profane the film is. Alongside the fact that it is riproaringly hilarious. Because the review offers the scope for more communication. There I can afford to speak to the broader audience. Because it isn't a number but more elaborate prose.
And there, it is entirely my opinion. I am writing what I think of the film. Granted a review is not a soliloquy, it is more of a dialogue. But while I am talking to you, I'm still talking my mind. So rest assured, it is always my opinion that you find in the reviews.
Coming to your most emphatic point - the one about shepherding the audience away from 'bad films', I've mentioned earlier that I respect other people's tastes. I can't happily tell someone what they like is trash. That judgement is really not something I believe in.
Instead, what I do is I try to tell folks when I find something awesome in a film. I try to compliment it and let people know. So when a friend texts me saying she took her mother-in-law to Saala Khadoos solely because she liked my review; and they both end up liking it so much they thank me for the recommendation, I think I have indeed done my bit for good cinema.
To complain about misogyny in a masala movie is a bit like lecturing on world hunger in a bachelor party. Instead, I prefer to write highly of female role models which is like talking about Akshaya Patra to anyone who cares to listen.
Once again, thanks for the discussion. It's so much fun articulating these things.
Mr josh...what is your opinion of the telugu movie titles these days??most of them seemed to be lifted from popular songs and they dont seem to be related to the movie at all....is it due to lack of creativity??
It is representative of a larger phenomenon in Telugu cinema - copy anything that works once. If a particular kind of film works, or a particular scene works, you'll soon find a number of very similar (not very well made) such films or scenes. Rayalaseema Factionism, for instance, was so overdone that you wouldn't believe it is a masterpiece like Antahpuram that spawned these awful movies.
I don't know why they do it. We can't blame creativity though. I feel any large population has creativity and talent in it. The issue is with the ecosystem which is supposed to nurture these qualities. We are extremely risk averse and highly skeptical of diversity, and that kills exploration and novelty. Maybe that is it.
I don't know why they do it. We can't blame creativity though. I feel any large population has creativity and talent in it. The issue is with the ecosystem which is supposed to nurture these qualities. We are extremely risk averse and highly skeptical of diversity, and that kills exploration and novelty. Maybe that is it.
Don't you guys, I mean the guys who write reviews here, think that you overdo criticism when you don't like a movie? If you don't like a bit of a movie, then you go all guns on it.. I have seen quite a few 3 star rated movies from you and half of them were decent enough to get at least 5 or even 6 in some cases.. I haven't watched this movie yet.. So, I am not commenting on this particular review, but the reviews as a whole in this website..I do check the reviews here quite often, so I don't despise you.. I am just suggesting you to think for yourself if you are doing so..
Dear Vamsi, Personally I feel this site is very correct with the reviews and ratings. There are other sites who give a minimum 6 for all reviews, you would be better of bookmarking those sites. Let the force be with the reviewers here, although might be your criticism influenced them to give a 5 to another movie released this Friday, which also deserved a 3.
I'm happy to ascertain that Vamsi's comment had nothing to do with my rating for LOL.
While we are on the topic of ratings, I'd like to talk a bit about how I approach them. My ratings are a combination of evaluations of the cinematic quality of the film as well as how much the target audience might like the film.
I was very tempted to give The H8ful Eight an 8 but I know in my heart of hearts that many people will find it a bore. It isn't fully warranted viewing even for people who identify themselves as QT fans. So, a 7.
On the other hand, I didn't think much of Bruce Lee. But it has that Srinu Vaitla brand of comedy that a number of people do find funny and apart from the top notch production values, the climactic arrival of Chiranjeevi truly fired up the proceedings. So, a 6.
The number game is complicated and not entirely objective. The best way to approach them is, in my opinion, to look at the review and then let the number guide you over your decision to finally catch the film.
While we are on the topic of ratings, I'd like to talk a bit about how I approach them. My ratings are a combination of evaluations of the cinematic quality of the film as well as how much the target audience might like the film.
I was very tempted to give The H8ful Eight an 8 but I know in my heart of hearts that many people will find it a bore. It isn't fully warranted viewing even for people who identify themselves as QT fans. So, a 7.
On the other hand, I didn't think much of Bruce Lee. But it has that Srinu Vaitla brand of comedy that a number of people do find funny and apart from the top notch production values, the climactic arrival of Chiranjeevi truly fired up the proceedings. So, a 6.
The number game is complicated and not entirely objective. The best way to approach them is, in my opinion, to look at the review and then let the number guide you over your decision to finally catch the film.
Josh
I generally like your reviews! But if you determine that target audience opinion also should figure into the rating, then it should occupy the additional line right next to performance/script/music/visuals as the fifth evaluation point. Which one of the four points mentioned above (performance etc) actually carries the target audience factor in them? None, in my opinion. So, it can only figure in a separate evaluation point. Clearly when there is more subjectivity in your presumption of target audience's tastes, then that should not figure into the rating and bring it down, so much so that it is no longer fair and justified.
Your justification for both Hateful eight and Bruce Lee are simply not acceptable. A good reviewer such as yourself takes the responsibility of elevating the moviegoers' standards with his reviews and not continue to presume an audience's reaction based on historical data.
Certainly please add your opinion, but separately! And certainly please continue to write your reviews! You write really well.
And thanks for that entertaining report on Kya Kool Hai blah blah...
I generally like your reviews! But if you determine that target audience opinion also should figure into the rating, then it should occupy the additional line right next to performance/script/music/visuals as the fifth evaluation point. Which one of the four points mentioned above (performance etc) actually carries the target audience factor in them? None, in my opinion. So, it can only figure in a separate evaluation point. Clearly when there is more subjectivity in your presumption of target audience's tastes, then that should not figure into the rating and bring it down, so much so that it is no longer fair and justified.
Your justification for both Hateful eight and Bruce Lee are simply not acceptable. A good reviewer such as yourself takes the responsibility of elevating the moviegoers' standards with his reviews and not continue to presume an audience's reaction based on historical data.
Certainly please add your opinion, but separately! And certainly please continue to write your reviews! You write really well.
And thanks for that entertaining report on Kya Kool Hai blah blah...
Hi Jwalakaumudi! My response to these points has the capacity of running into pages, and if you are aware of my tendency to sacrifice brevity for the sake of clarity, you'll understand I'm at a loss without my editor. So to keep things short, I'll reply to your two very fine points, with questions.
Firstly - Who is a film made for?
The obvious but inadequate answer is - the makers themselves. They do it for their artistic satisfaction and thus a film is about their own aspirations. But then, they could keep it to themselves, can't they? Why release in theatres and spend so much money?
Something changes when the question of business enters the picture. That is where art becomes entertainment (And that isn't a bad word, regardless of what Vidya Balan and Milan Luthria may think). So, who is the equally big player now? Yup, the audience. And in particular, the target audience.
By implication, who is a review written for?
Secondly - Who am I to tell anyone what they ought to like or ought not to like?
My shuffled playlist plays 'Jagadodharana' by M S Subbulakshmi and follows it up with DSP's 'Come to the Party, Subbalakshmi'. I enjoy them both. And I'd be mighty annoyed if some random Joe (or Josh) were to tell me that I shouldn't like either of them.
When I feel so strongly about my playlist, how can I tell someone else what they ought to like or ought not to like?
I have two things to thank you for - One, for bringing up this rather fundamental discussion. And two, for encouraging a writer.
Thanks!
Firstly - Who is a film made for?
The obvious but inadequate answer is - the makers themselves. They do it for their artistic satisfaction and thus a film is about their own aspirations. But then, they could keep it to themselves, can't they? Why release in theatres and spend so much money?
Something changes when the question of business enters the picture. That is where art becomes entertainment (And that isn't a bad word, regardless of what Vidya Balan and Milan Luthria may think). So, who is the equally big player now? Yup, the audience. And in particular, the target audience.
By implication, who is a review written for?
Secondly - Who am I to tell anyone what they ought to like or ought not to like?
My shuffled playlist plays 'Jagadodharana' by M S Subbulakshmi and follows it up with DSP's 'Come to the Party, Subbalakshmi'. I enjoy them both. And I'd be mighty annoyed if some random Joe (or Josh) were to tell me that I shouldn't like either of them.
When I feel so strongly about my playlist, how can I tell someone else what they ought to like or ought not to like?
I have two things to thank you for - One, for bringing up this rather fundamental discussion. And two, for encouraging a writer.
Thanks!
As a matter of fact, I have posted my comment after checking both the reviews.. So, the other movie which got a 5 from Josh isn't because of me! Please don't give me so much credit!
And coming to my point about too much criticism, I agree some movies deserve just a 3 and some movies even 1, which these guys give.. I personally really enjoy reading those reviews.. they are funny and sarcastic alright, but that being said.. My point is when there is a point that can be criticized, the movie, in general is being criticized big time.. For example, about Raj Tarun.. His acting is exactly the same in all the movies? He is a funny and easy going yet serious bloke in his first movie, Uyyala Jampala.. and then coming to his second movie, he is an inter failure with almost nothing great about his character, I agree.. but coming to Kumari 21F, he is nowhere near a failure.. He is an excellent cook and someone with good aspirations of going on a cruise.. Someone with such aspirations can't be described as a jobless lout, isn't it? That's something I meant.. when the movie is bad, they tend to criticize a lot more things than necessary..
Also, I don't like those other sites you mentioned which give a stereotypical rating.. I am for apt ratings.. I just gave a suggestion, a chance for improvement.. If they don't feel the same way I do, I don't have an issue with it!
And coming to my point about too much criticism, I agree some movies deserve just a 3 and some movies even 1, which these guys give.. I personally really enjoy reading those reviews.. they are funny and sarcastic alright, but that being said.. My point is when there is a point that can be criticized, the movie, in general is being criticized big time.. For example, about Raj Tarun.. His acting is exactly the same in all the movies? He is a funny and easy going yet serious bloke in his first movie, Uyyala Jampala.. and then coming to his second movie, he is an inter failure with almost nothing great about his character, I agree.. but coming to Kumari 21F, he is nowhere near a failure.. He is an excellent cook and someone with good aspirations of going on a cruise.. Someone with such aspirations can't be described as a jobless lout, isn't it? That's something I meant.. when the movie is bad, they tend to criticize a lot more things than necessary..
Also, I don't like those other sites you mentioned which give a stereotypical rating.. I am for apt ratings.. I just gave a suggestion, a chance for improvement.. If they don't feel the same way I do, I don't have an issue with it!
Hilarious review :)
My sympathies are with you for watching this one Ravi :)
My sympathies are with you for watching this one Ravi :)
LEAVE A COMMENT
fullhyd.com has 700,000+ monthly visits. Tell Hyderabad what you feel about Seethamma Andalu Ramayya Sitralu!
MORE MOVIES
SEARCH MOVIES
Dissatisfied with the results? Report a problem or error, or add a listing.
ADVERTISEMENT
SHOUTBOX!
{{ todo.summary }}... expand »
{{ todo.text }}
« collapse
First | Prev |
1 2 3
{{current_page-1}} {{current_page}} {{current_page+1}}
{{last_page-2}} {{last_page-1}} {{last_page}}
| Next | Last
{{todos[0].name}}
{{todos[0].text}}
ADVERTISEMENT
This page was tagged for
Seethamma Andalu Ramayya sitralu movie rulz
seethamma andalu ramayya sitralu
seethamma andalu ramayya sitralu movierulz
seethamma andalu ramayya sitralu full movie
seethamma andalu ramayya sitharam