Melodrama Masquerading as History. Review on The Tashkent Files

Vivek Agnihotris The Tashkent Files attempts to explore the mysterious death of PM Lal Bahadur Shastri(1966), but ultimately collapses under the weight of its own agenda. Marketed as a conspiracy thriller inspired by true events, it follows a young journalist(Shweta Basu Prasad) investigating alleged political cover-ups. The castMithun Chakraborty, Pankaj Tripathi, Naseeruddin Shah, and Vinay Pathakoveracts consistently, giving the film the feel of a stage play rather than a cinematic thriller.

Critics universally panned it. Shubhra Gupta called it a series of eye-roll moments, while Film Companion derided its quasi-intellectual veneer hiding oversimplified reasoning. Hindustan Times flagged communal undertones in Tripathis speeches, and Scroll.in criticized its lack of evidence. Essentially, the film prioritizes political messaging over storytelling, turning historical inquiry into melodramatic propaganda. Editing is choppy, pacing uneven, and the cinematography often shaky. Even sympathetic outlets admit the dialogue is stilted, performances exaggerated, and suspense almost entirely manufactured.

Audience response was divided. IMDb ratings(8.1/10) were inflated by niche fanbases, while many viewers on Reddit and Quora called it a C-grade disaster, citing terrible direction, wasted talent, and blatant manipulation of facts. Social media buzz was as much about controversy as quality, reflecting Indias cultural polarization rather than the films cinematic merit.

Financially, it fared modestly. Made on ₹;7.5 crore, it grossed around ₹;20 crore worldwidea small success driven by nationalist circuits rather than broad appeal. The film ran over 100 days in select theaters, but in the larger box-office landscape, it was hardly a hit. Overseas collections were negligible($110, 000), confirming its appeal was limited and highly regional.

In short, The Tashkent Files is a film that trades historical rigor and cinematic craft for political point-scoring. It is loud, clumsy, and polarizingmore propaganda than thriller. Watch it only if you want to see how historical events can be weaponized for ideology, but dont expect a compelling or balanced cinematic experience.