Movie Review - You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger

Familiar Bright Master

Rating : 7/10
Reviewer: Arunabha Sengupta

Even as the maestro struggles to slow down the inevitable trudge towards old age and oblivion, an addict cannot but perk up at the thought of a Woody Allen flick – especially one dealing with the intricacies of relationships.
Manhattan, Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Husbands and Wives, Crimes and Misdemeanours – in his heydays, late seventies to early nineties, the celebrated filmmaker gave us some of the most poignant portrayals of the maze of emotional connections so common in urban life.
After a handful of pitiable digressions into inanity thereafter (Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Cassandra's Dream), the veteran filmmaker did more than hint at a glorious second coming with the classy Match Point and the sparkling Vicky Christina Barcelona. 

With You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, he attempts to recreate the magic of his earlier ‘80s experiments with complicated ebb and flow of passion, compromise and betrayal.
Does he succeed?
Ingredient-wise, YWMATDS has all that is required for a Woody Allen relationship caper. Well ... almost.
There is a stellar cast – including some very big names in Anthony Hopkins, Naomi Watts and Antonio Banderas. There is a more than talented collection of actors – Gemma Jones in a major role, Freida Pinto and Lucy Punch in great cameos, along with the delightful appearance of Anupam Kher in a couple of scenes.
The storyline has enough drama, deceit, dilemma and doubt to keep hardcore Woody fans engaged and enthralled. It is almost as if the entire ensemble of Hannah and her Sisters has been fast forwarded into the noughties of the next century. All these make for a tailored-to-perfection Woody suit for the fan, but for a couple of missing threads.

The movie starts with the life of the demented and disturbed Helena (Jones) seeking solace in shady clairvoyance after the break up of her forty-year marriage.

The focus smoothly embraces the troubled relationship of Helena's daughter Sally (Watts) –  an art gallery executive, and her husband, the struggling novelist Roy (Josh Brolin). We witness the tottering balance of the two as they do their precarious synchronised walk on the narrow rope of fidelity. Sally develops feelings for her suave and successful boss Greg (Banderas). Roy – wrestling with anxiety over the fate of his new novel – succumbs to the sultry charms of the Indian girl across the street, Dia (Pinto), who takes off her clothes with metronomic regularity and without too much deliberation about lowering the blinds.
There is also the additional parallel plot of a ridiculous attempt by Helena's ex-husband Alfie (Hopkins) to regain his youth by marrying a cockney-spouting wannabe actress Charmaine (Punch).
In between the tangles of ardour and adultery, is etched a queer little intricacy involving poker, publishing and plagiarism.
The questions raised and the human frailty displayed amidst flashes of goodness and trust are reminiscent of vintage Woody. The performances are commendable.
Gemma Jones – more universally popular as Madam Pomfrey of the Harry Potter films – excels as Helena, an experience-weary divorcee leaning on pseudoscience for sustenance, superstitious and gullible, yet irritatingly interfering. Naomi Watts (Mulholland Dr., The Ring) gives a controlled performance, and somehow manages to look stunning even during scenes depicting most ugly altercations. Antonio Banderas is restrained, dapper and underplayed. Anthony Hopkins as usual does a great job as the age-battling, delusional and – ultimately – cheated husband. Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire) in her brief role looks sexy and exudes promise. However, the best performance is undoubtedly that of Lucy Punch (Bad Teacher) as the fortune hunting ex-escort, with her unabashed colloquial delivery and brilliant rendition of confused self-justification when caught red-handed in her act of infidelity. 

The background chore, as in any Allen film, is peerless, with a plot-relevant Schubert used to excellent effect. The cinematography of Vilmos Zsigmond does for London what many of Allen's previous films did for New York – an eloquent ode to the city. In spite of the grey skies normally associated with the metropolis, it is shot almost entirely in bright sunshine - which to some extent mellows the cruelty of the characters to themselves and each other.
However, if the film falls short of the demanding level of Woody Allen's illustrious past, it can be attributed to a couple of incompatible ingredients.
Josh Brolin, overweight and wooden, is unconvincing as the author-husband. It is difficult to imagine such an uncouth voyeur ending up with sympathy and reciprocation from a much younger girl after openly admitting to getting a hard on by watching her undress from his window across the street. Even the gifted ability to recognise a far-off refrain faintly trickling through the same window seems too inadequate a virtue for a sensuous and engaged Freida Pinto to fall for him. Whereas Michael Caine in Hannah and Her Sisters had played a similar role with élan, convincingly devious and yet with enough pathos to extract a semblance of sympathy from the audience, Brolin seems more likely to generate apathy and irritation.
The other shortcoming from a Woody Allen point of view is the absence of the man himself. Earlier, when such complicated equations were played across the screen, Woody would flit across again and again as a pivotal element, a neurotic and often pathetic character, adding a sublime element of comedy in the fray, moving the audience to both pity and laughter through his failed attempts at romance, mania about illness, raising comical yet poignant questions about death and god. It is only in one movie – the superb Bullets over Broadway – that Allen's curious shoes have been adequately filled by someone else, by virtue of a scintillating performance by John Cusack.
However, in the absence of the hilarity and pathos of a signature Woody character, the film is not as funny as one would expect of an Allen offering. There are punch lines and humorous situations, most of them coming from the irresistible Lucy Punch – but a devoted fan of the film maker will leave the show with a tinge of disappointment.
It is probably due to the advancing years of the thespian that the movie deals with the themes of aging and absence of god, apart from the pet Woody topics of betrayal and justice. The message that one can decipher at the end of it all is a reflection of the times – maybe even eternal. Is it a blessing to live in the world of illusion – without the rational intelligence that slices through the pretentions of society and lays bare the most uncomfortable truths?
Perhaps it is the treatment of this one question which makes it more than a worthwhile watch.

Movie Review - Angels in the Outfield

Ya Gotta Believe!

Rating:  7/10
Reviewer: Aisoorya Vijayakumar

What	Angels in the Outfield – a comedy on baseball, faith and hope that runs close to 1 hr 45 minutes with a surprising PG rating (considering that in the present day, parents are the ones who need their children's grudging guidance in understanding the expletives rampant in what are deemed to be today's civilized movie masterpieces). Produced by Irby Smith, Joe Roth, and Roger Birnbaum, and released and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, the movie was conceived as a fresh modern-day version of the 1951-classic of the same name.
Who?	It stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Danny Glover, Christopher Lloyd, Brenda Fricker, Tony Danza, Matthew McConaughey, and many others. Carney Lansford, a former baseball player (California Angels, 1978-1980), decided to try his hand at a different game altogether when he starred as Kit "Hit or Die" Kesey in this movie. The movie was directed by William Dear, best known for his not-just-run-of-the-mill films, Harry and the Hendersons, Wild America, and If Looks Could Kill. Dear was lent help by Randy Edelman who scored the music, and Matthew Leonetti who wielded the camera. Dorothy Kingsley, George Wells, and Holly Goldberg penned the screenplay , leaning on the original 1951-script and screenplay by Dorothy Kingsley, George Wells, and Richard Conlin, for support.
When?	Released on July 15, 1994.
How did the movie fare?	Rotten Tomatoes gave this movie a 40 % rating on its tomatometer. Despite the movie facing an identity crisis battle with some critics crushing the moviemakers, calling the movie a childish downright waste-of-time as in the case of Reel Reviews, cynicism could not really hold this movie back from winning the hearts of many.
Did we like it?	At some points, a doubtful not-so-loud 'Yes' but at many, a resounding 'Of course!' In order to look at the movie objectively, one should really grasp what they try to tell us at the end of it all – “ya gotta believe” – may be not in Omnipotent Divinity, but in oneself! Because, as the chief angel in the movie says, when it really matters, no angel helps you out and “Championships have to be won on your own. It's a rule.” Let's dissect the movie to decide if it would be a worthwhile watch. Fire (the plot and theme): The movie lies on a very unassuming frame with no intrigue what-so-ever. The plot, as such, is no mighty task to untangle and revolves around Roger and JP, sheltered in a foster home. His father's sarcastic and casual remark that they would be 'family again' when the California Angels win the baseball pennant seeds colorful hopes in Roger's heart, who fervently prays for heavenly intervention in the scheme of things. On hearing his plea, a team of angels led by Al, descend to diminish the angst from the boy's mind. The angels weed out the insecurities and indifferences that the baseball team seems to be pregnant with and pave the way for them to climb to the top of the rankings. Do the angels go on to win a momentous victory in the yearly tournament and make Roger’s prayers come true?. At the risk of sounding very far-fetched, the plot talks about a series of monumental events that change the life of a whole team, all in answer to a child's prayer. With the characteristic flaws that any happily-ever-after script and screenplay would possess, this one too plays right into the hands of critics to claim that the storyline leaves much to be desired. Water (characterization and narration): The transformation of a grumpy old baseball team manager to a tender 'grandpa'ish man who plays with the neighborhood kids is a lifetime journey, beautifully brought to life in the character of George Knox. But the integrity thrust on the actors gets more than what you can digest beyond a point and one has only a caustic-tongued snobbish commentator for company. The villainy in the latter comes almost as a breath of fresh air when one gets suffocated being amidst a bunch of do-gooders. The movie's pace is wonderful, neither tauntingly slow, nor dazingly fast. Air (actors and performances): Danny Glover needs to be lauded for his portrayal of a cranky, ever-swearing, impatient-to-death baseball team manager, George Knox. Gordon-Levitt shows precocious maturity with his acting prowess in his role of Roger, the boy who makes it all happen. Fricker and Lloyd have done their roles to prefection, as the foster home caretaker and the chief angel respectively, and have blended with their roles. The support cast, though not really etching themselves in memory, have done convincingly good jobs. Earth (music and camera): Music deserves a bow in this venture. Never too dreamy, never too raspy, it soothes pained nerves. Cinematography is exceptionally good, with the animated angel sequences with human faces seamlessly blending into the mainstream action. Graphics have been paid careful attention to, as explicit in Al the angel's maneuvers. Space (dialogues): Witty and memorable. The painstakingly tailored dialogues match the capabilities of a 12-year-old teary-eyed boy, as they do a funny morally right angel, not to speak of a grouchy old man who thrives on blasphemy and personal insults. Some lines which fail to fade from the memory include - “God... if there is a God... if you're a man or a woman... if you're listening, I'd really, really like a family. My dad says that will only happen if the Angels win the pennant. The baseball team, I mean. So, maybe you can help them win a little. Amen. Oh, A-woman, too.“ (Roger Bomman) “You don't think as a team, you don't play as a team, you don't even LOSE as a team!” (George Knox) “You can't go through life thinking everyone you meet will one day let you down.” (George Knox) “We're 'AL'ways watching!” (The movie's finishing lines by Al the Chief Angel)
What's our verdict?	The movie steers clear of most of the expected frivolities such as bad acting, bad background scores, bad dialogues, and bad treatment, and has elicited only the best from the crew. Given the challenges in penning a dreamy script, we think the movie deserves a 7 on 10 rating, So, given! The movie doesn't try to wear a preachy cloak and make us all believers at one go. But, as JP says, “it could happen!”

Pictures Source: Internet. (Please write to us if there are any copyright infringements on the pictures.)

Book Review - Life of Pi

A tale of incredible grit in truly testing times of adversity

Rating: 7.5/10

Reviewer: Aisoorya Vijayakumar

What	Should this book be deemed to be a fantasy, given its entrancing, yet far-from-credible, storyline? Or should we designate it as an epithet of growing up philosophies, as felt by a surprisingly erudite 16-yr-old protagonist? Maybe we should mark this as a book of daring adventures and (literally!) wild confrontations, where the very belief in survival is fighting a game of double jeopardy. This abashing work gives rise to all these and a lot more questions and one finds it bewilderingly hard to characterize this novel as anything in particular. Stupefying though it may sound, it is said to have been rejected by close to five publishing houses, before Knopf Canada decided to promulgate this novel by publishing it. It went on to be critically and thunderously acclaimed, and of all the plentiful laurels it received, what stays in one's mind is that it won the man booker prize for fiction in 2002.
Who?	Written by Yann Martel, the tale revolves around a life-changing 227-day journey on a lifeboat, that a 16-year-old Piscine Mollitor Patel (in short, Pi) undertakes, in the alarmingly frightening company of a 400-pound-bengal tiger.
When?	Released in Sep 2001. The story is set in 1977, in Pondicherry, a former French-colonised Indian union territory. All the places cited in the novel are for real and form an integral part of India's delightful past and present.
How did the book fare?	The novel made heads turn, no doubt! And turn dangerously wide angles at that! Till date, most readers give the impression of utter predicament if asked how they liked the book. Torn between having to decide on a yes or a no, for a book that some think borders on incongruity, their dilemma is written painfully clear for all to see. The Guardian's review was a compound of admiration and nihilism. And BBC's Finlo Rohrer's review made it amply vivid that the entertainment staff of the establishment did not get amazed by Martel's prowess.
Did I like it?	It's immensely difficult to not find this formidable book remarkable, if not exquisite. So for the very reason that the book stands for its convictions amidst mundane monotony - yes, I did like it. As the book begins – (Coffee Bean's reaction) One eyebrow raised 1/8th of an inch, Jeeves style – So this ultra-smart kid Pi, blessed with splendid insight is drowning in his self-glories! Ouch! So much for the hype! The boy needs an immediate dose of emergency humility. The take on animal life and time-surpassing questions on the moral ethicity of imprisoning animals in zoos are memorable though. And so are his lines on spirituality. For all his repulsive narcissism, the boy does have brains. As the plot unfolds - (Coffee Bean's reaction) Alright, the boy and his parents are setting sail to Canada with their zoo animals. The ship sinks and the boy survives, with a zebra, a hyena, and an orangutan on a life boat and urges Richard Parker to latch on as well. Can they survive the journey of 227 days on that pitiable lifeboat at all? That forms the story which blends fleeting emotions and adventure. When Richard Parker's identity is revealed, both my eyebrows were raised at the turn of events – A bengal tiger on a life boat?!! Whoa! A 16-yr-old Pi and a 400-pound Parker. If only the knot of this had hit the heads of some well-admired moviemakers I can think of. What a temptingly 'cute' setting to delve into the onset of a crude, chilling, and yet cherishable friendship. I can almost even hum the violin score on the background as their relationship evolves into the millennium’s tauntingly sensational (another bit of female chorus vocals here) story of a lovely bond! As Shakespeare's lines go, “That ends this strange eventful history!” But thankfully, Martel has kept this scary temptation in check and has narrated the difficulties and delusions of this situation. How Pi and Parker thrive and how you want to read between Martel's lines to digest the complete implications of his tale is up to you, as the reader. There are lessons to learn, and then there are lessons to remember. The cynics might allegorize this, the believers might plunge headlong inside, the critics might objectively butcherise this, and the weak-hearted might give up on this early on. Whichever way one looks at it, the story is undeniably enthralling. Lines that caught my wandering attention: The reason death sticks so closely to life isn't biological necessity—it's envy. Life is so beautiful that death has fallen in love with it, a jealous, possessive love that grabs at what it can. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation. For evil in the open is but evil from within that has been let out. The main battlefield for good is not the open ground of the public arena but the small clearing of each heart. I did not count the days or the weeks or the months. Time is an illusion that only makes us pant. I survived because I forgot even the very notion of time. There were many seas. The sea roared like a tiger. The sea whispered in your ear like a friend telling you secrets. The sea clinked like small change in a pocket. The sea thundered like avalanches. The sea hissed like sandpaper working on wood. The sea sounded like someone vomiting. The sea was dead silent. If you stumble at mere believability, what are you living for? Isn't love hard to believe? Don't you bully me with your politeness! Love is hard to believe, ask any lover. Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist. God is hard to believe, ask any believer. What is your problem with hard to believe?
What's the verdict?	The book definitely is in the list of my thousand-books-to-read-before-you-die list. Alright that 'thousand' was wistful exaggeration, but am sure you get the point! It may not be every reader's favorite, but the book does give one a lot of rhyme and reason to look into oneself and check what one believes in. For steering away from age-old conventionalities and for a capital clarity in thoughts and words, the book deserves a 7.5 on 10.

Pictures Source: Internet. (Please write to us if there are any copyright infringements on the pictures.)

A Film on Cricket in India

There is a filmmaker who loves cricket, characters and cinema – not necessarily in that order. He has now decided to combine all three into a documentary which captures the national passion with throbbing eloquence. The product, with its current working title Beyond All Boundaries, is receiving the vital finishing touches.

"Cricket and the passion for it is the river that runs through India. Given how divided the country is along lines of language and region, not to mention class, cricket is pretty much the only thing that unites us. A farmer in Bihar and an engineer in Chennai feel equally passionate about only one thing – and that is the Indian cricket team," says Los Angeles-based independent film maker Sushrut Jain.

Jain chiselled his film-making skills by completing the graduate program in film making at the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts. In his final year of the MFA programme, for his thesis, he travelled to Mumbai to shoot a short film, Andheri, which ended up being showcased in more than 40 film festivals.

Sushrut has now followed it up with this documentary which captures the progress of India during the 2011 World Cup and in the process shows how much of a driving force the game is in the lives of Indian people.

What made him take on the venture?

Jain says that he grew up with the dream of becoming a fast bowler. He played cricket every day, with rubber ball and tennis ball in his building, and the authentic cricket ball cricket in his Juhu school ground. Eventually, realising the limits of his talent, he decided to focus on his studies. Years later, while living in the United States, news of the Indian cricket team was the umbilical chord that kept him attached to the mother country.

“Having already made Andheri in India, I knew that my first feature had to be equally authentic and meaningful. When the 2011 World Cup was approaching, I started thinking that someone should make a film to capture India and the passion for the country's favourite sport during this exciting period. Eventually I decided that that person had to be me.

“My cinematographer, Jeremy, was my classmate at the graduate cinema school. Like most Americans, he had no idea what cricket was until he joined me on this film. The rest of my crew were all Indians, a mix of recent film school graduates (from Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune and Whistling Woods) and Bollywood industry professionals. All of them joined me because of their love for cricket and their excitement about the idea of this film.”

The film is perhaps the first definitive documentary based on India’s successful World Cup journey of 2011. However, while cricket and the World Cup create the background for the film, it is also about human stories of hope and struggle.

Jain would not categorise it as a message film with social commentary produced through editorialising. Rather, it is designed to entertain and also speaks eloquently about the common man directly through the stories of the three real life characters whose stories are intertwined with and influenced by the action on the cricket field.

“We begin with the end of the 1983 World Cup win and once we've quickly highlighted the fact that going into 2011 we haven't won again, we are done with the cricket history part of the film. We quickly establish how huge cricket is in India via the use of interviews and vox populi and then set the stage for the World Cup and the national expectation this time around. After that we launch into the stories of our three characters one by one. We intertwine their stories with an eye on India's progress through the nine matches it played in this World Cup.”

The motley threesome  - The three characters are very ordinary people made exceptional through their connection with cricket. For all of them, cricket is a lifeline.

This raises some questions.

India is a country where there are many for whom a victory in a cricket match is more important than a successful relationship, for whom a Sachin Tendulkar hundred can actually act as an antidote for a loss of job. Among the millions of fans, what made him choose these three? Who are the three chosen ones?

The film maker has a treasury of rich memories of his association with these three and believes that they are unique in their own ways.

The first is Sudhir Kumar, the well-known super-fan who is a regular feature in the Indian stadiums, body and soul painted in tricolour.

“Sudhir Kumar is a one of a kind. The way he is portrayed on the news and his single mindedness leads people to think he is crazy. But he doesn't let that bother him as he pursues his passion to be the greatest cheerleader for Indian cricket. He believes that what he does makes a difference to the morale of the Indian team and you couldn't convince him otherwise. We became friends during the World Cup and he would often call me from his cell phone (easily the most expensive thing he owned) and tell me what happened in the last match. After the India-Australia quarter final he called me up excitedly from Ahmedabad and told me he had asked the Indian team manager to pray to the Ganesh idol inside the stadium before the match. He said that this idol had always been there, but no one in the team knew about it, which is why India had a bad record in the venue. The manager prayed as per Sudhir's request and India ended up winning. Sudhir was ecstatic as he told me the story.

“Sudhir once mentioned that he had a bank balance of Rs 3. Yet, he has never taken a penny from any of the cricketers. There are so many great Sudhir stories but you will have to wait for the film to see them. We could have made an entire film just about Sudhir.”

The next main character is Prithvi Shaw, a 12-year old phenomenon Mumbai cricketer who induces ripples of romantic reflections about another schoolboy cricketer who emerged in the late eighties.

“We heard about Prithvi from a local Mumbai cricket writer. When we researched him we found that he was one of the three most talked about young cricketers in the Mumbai scene. We got in touch with his father who allowed us to spend time with him. We met his coaches at MIG and elsewhere. We even talked to the local Mumbai politician who has been Prithvi's sponsor for the past couple of years.

“Prithvi grew comfortable with us quite quickly and we had a lot of fun speaking with him and watching him play. He is very down-to-earth and wasn't ruffled by a camera being around him all the time. He has already learnt to deal with the attention and maintain his focus on the cricket.”

And finally there is perhaps the most extraordinary choice – Akshaya Surwe, a girl cricketer from the slums of Dadar.

“Akshaya, in spite of being a girl, has drive and athleticism that is visible to anyone who sees her play at Shivaji Park. What drew me to her though was the spark in her eye and her love for the game. Despite living in a small one-room chawl with no electricity and having no one in the world but her mother, Akshaya was never deterred in her dream to become a cricketer. I grew up in Mumbai and I knew kids like her and we had instant rapport. I felt if her story and personality appealed to me so much then they would to others as well. We also talked a lot to her coach, Aparna Kambli, who believed in Akshaya's talent and did a lot to help her.”

The film traces the highs and lows of the lives of these three characters even as the World Cup marches along in the background and India advances towards the crown of the cricketing world. The camera follows Sudhir on his cycle tour from Bihar to Bangladesh to watch the Indian games. It captures the dilapidated living quarters where Akshaya washes clothes, heats rotis. Her cricket playing friend Kaikesha dons a burkha. At the same time the two collect the pictures of Indian cricketers, walk out in cricketing whites and drives elegantly down the ground.

It focuses on the wonder boy as he takes guard in the nets and shows a surprisingly mature head on tender shoulder.

There is further intrigue as India wins the World Cup, and the movie captures some critical moments of the lives of these three even as they take place. All through, it never seems that the camera intrudes in their lives – the characters remain refreshingly real and sometimes brutally honest. 

Although it deals with a colonial sport with limited global following, Sushrut believes that the film will have universal appeal.

“The Indian audience is naturally going to love this film because it will be the first authentic chronicle of their amazing World Cup win. They will also love it because they will find the three characters to be true and irresistible. I grew up in Mumbai playing cricket every day of my life and I know that if back then my friends and I had a film like this to watch we would have been ecstatic.

“We also believe that through the festival circuit (and possibly ESPN or HBO), American and European audiences will be able to watch this film. There is a demand in the West for truthful stories from India that are realistic without being depressing. A sports documentary is the perfect device to bridge the gap between India and the West, even if it is a sport they may not understand. The American sports fans I have shown the footage to are extremely eager to see the final product because sports fanaticism is something that crosses all boundaries.”

The film has been a true labour of love for Jain.

“We did this film purely based on our love for the sport and of India with no big backers. I raised funds from grassroots, put together a crew of young Indian Bombay film school kids, and we travelled all over the country following our characters and the World Cup.”

As in any noble venture, helping hands were lent along the way by many.

“My first Assistant Director and Line Producer, Ashwin Shetty, and my second AD, Ankit Dahake, worked day and night on what was a tremendously long and difficult shoot. Other people who went out of their way to help us were journalist Ayaz Memon, cricketer Balvinder Singh Sandhu and Theo Braganza – the owner of a 60-yr old cricket book shop in Dadar. The great part was Yuvraj Singh and Sourav Ganguly providing us great interviews. And finally, my friends in America, primarily Oana Poliac – our biggest investor – and my mother, who fed and cared for Jeremy and me for nearly four months.”

And how does the road ahead look once the 200 hours of footage is edited into a 90- minute feature?

“I hope to have the film play on Indian television starting sometime next summer. We are open to speaking with all the sports and cricket channels there, Neo, TEN, ESPN, Star etc. And even news channels like NDTV who might find a film about India's passion for cricket to be an irresistible programming choice."

“However, we do need the help of fans and investors to help us cross the finishing line. We need people to go to our film's website (http://www.cricketdocumentary.com/) and make donations to help us finish this film. We have no big sponsors behind us and have done everything totally independently. This is a grassroots funded film and no donation/contribution is too small.”

For those interested, the website mentioned above includes a short trailer of the film. There is also an associated blog which captures some delightful anecdotes about the experiences during the filming.

There is plenty of material there to whet one's cricket loving appetite until the final product becomes available.

The short clip that is available for view clearly demonstrates something that Sushrut repeats:

"It is the kind of film that could only have happened in India."