★ 1 / 10
I don't normally write reviews, but this movie
Vishal K
I don't normally write reviews, but this movie is so horrible, I felt like I had to - just so that you don't have to waste your time watching this PoS. The…
I don't normally write reviews, but this movie is so horrible, I felt like I had to - just so that you don't have to waste your time watching this PoS. The plot is boring and un-inspired. The cinematography looks like it belongs in a cheap TV show. The acting is flat and wooden - the characters don't really act like real human beings. Even the god-damned music sucks balls!!!
30 minutes in, we paused the movie, feeling pretty bored for night over. When I started the movie on night two, I was shocked, stunned, and flabbergasted to realize that there were another 1.5 hours of this crap to slog through!!!
Spare yourself the misery - skip this pathetic excuse for a 'movie'.
★ 7 / 10
Test directed by S Shashikant is a fascinating
Prabhathalovesmovies T
Test directed by S Shashikant is a fascinating take on the ideas of morality and ambition through three flawed protagonists. The director along with his writer…
Test directed by S Shashikant is a fascinating take on the ideas of morality and ambition through three flawed protagonists. The director along with his writer is successful in creating a complex human drama where the lines between right and wrong are heavily blurred. R Madhavan and Nayanthara particularly stand out with their outstanding performances. My full review available in own website rigoberthareviews.com
★ 9 / 10
1. Saravanan’s Position in the Story He is
Ujjwal S
1. Saravanan’s Position in the Story He is not like the usual “struggling scientist” stereotype who takes shortcuts out of desperation. He’s actually a…
1. Saravanan’s Position in the Story
He is not like the usual “struggling scientist” stereotype who takes shortcuts out of desperation.
He’s actually a capable, visionary scientist who has already achieved something groundbreaking in the energy sector.
His frustration is not with his own capacity, but with India’s system: bureaucracy, corruption, and lack of state support.
That’s why his friend suggests:
> “If you went to America, you’d be valued. There your research would be funded.”
Meaning: Saravanan’s problem is not personal incompetence or failure, but structural indifference from the state.
---
2. His “Shortcut” Is Different
Many people chase shortcuts for personal gain → luxury, wealth, status.
Saravanan, however, is considering the match-fixing shortcut not for himself, but for his project and his country’s advancement.
In his reasoning: “One cricket match’s loss is a small price to pay for energy independence, prosperity, and a stronger India.”
So, he’s not a greedy or struggling man in the ordinary sense.
He’s a tragic idealist — forced into a morally grey path by a system that shut all the right doors.
---
3. Why the Film Still Frames Him as “Fallen”
The movie makes us feel torn:
On one hand, we sympathize → “Yes, he deserves support; the government failed him.”
On the other, we feel betrayed → “But cricket is sacred, and national trust cannot be bartered.”
By showing his downfall, the director is really criticizing India’s priorities:
We worship cricket, but undervalue science.
We invest billions in matches, but not in breakthroughs that could power the nation.
We glorify players, but scientists remain invisible.
---
4. So, is he a struggling scientist who chose a shortcut?
? Not exactly.
He is a visionary scientist sidelined by the state.
His choice of “shortcut” is not about personal escape, but about national progress.
That makes him not a failed man, but a failed system’s victim
18%
TOMATOMETER
· 11 reviews
18%
AUDIENCE
5.1/10
2.8K
•••
Thanks FREEMAN!!!