,<\/strong> based on \u201ctrue gossip\u201d surrounding a real individual of the same name.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe film starts by establishing the legend of Nageswara Rao through a series of daring heists that made him infamous in the region. The first half of the movie portrays him as a ruthless and brutal criminal with a questionable moral compass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the more notable scenes in the first half is a train robbery that showcases Nageswara Rao’s audacity and skill. However, as the story unfolds, it is revealed that many of the negative perceptions about him are misconceptions, similar to many other tales that have been fabricated about him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second half delves deeper into his character, exploring his motivations and revealing his transformation into a folk hero who fought for the betterment of his people. The film highlights how he was a product of a system that had neglected and marginalized his community, pushing them into a life of crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tiger Nageswara Rao’s<\/strong> actions are portrayed as a fight against injustice and a way to provide for his people, earning him the moniker “Robin Hood”. This is exemplified by his efforts to bring basic amenities like roads and electricity to his community.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe film also explores his love life, with two prominent female characters: Sara and Mani. However, the portrayal of these relationships has been criticized as being clich\u00e9 and vulgar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The film culminates in Tiger Nageswara Rao’s<\/strong> tragic death in a police encounter in 1987, which cemented his status as a legend in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhile Tiger Nageswara Rao<\/em> attempts to shed light on the social injustices faced by the people of Stuartpuram and the complex character of the titular thief, some reviewers found it to be a middling affair with a tedious runtime. They argue that the film falls short of its potential due to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n