The Taj Story Review: Bold Idea, Uneven Execution
I sat through the film with a sense of curiosity. The premise grabbed me: a guide-turned-litigant challenges the accepted history of the Taj Mahal. The film opens in Agra, and we meet Vishnu Das (played by Paresh Rawal), a local tour guide whose father’s suicide and his own disillusionment with his job push him into filing a Public Interest Litigation against the monument itself. The idea of a monument being questioned — historically, legally, visually — holds promise.
Visually, the cinematography impresses at times. The shots of the Taj and its surroundings feel reverent; the monument’s beauty is captured and used as both a backdrop and a character. Rawal carries the film: he invests in his role, lending it enough weight that when other parts falter, you still feel invested in his journey.
But midway through, I found the film drifting. It wants to ask big questions – who built the Taj, what lies beneath, what narratives have been hidden – but then it doesn’t always deliver satisfying answers. The courtroom scenes are heavy with dialogue, yet the arguments feel recycled and the emotional stakes don’t always land. By the end, I felt the film raised more questions than it resolved — in some ways, that is fine, but in others it felt incomplete.
What works (Reasons to watch)
1. A bold subject
The film doesn’t shy away from controversy. It takes on a well-known monument and multiple historical narratives. That alone makes it interesting. Many films play safe; this one steps into a zone of debate.
2. Paresh Rawal’s performance
Rawal anchors the film. He brings conviction and energy. When he’s on screen, you believe his character’s anger, confusion, and drive for truth. That helps the film significantly, because the rest of the cast or story elements don’t always match his level.
3. Moments of visual and emotional impact
There are sequences — early flashbacks, the tour-guide segments, the courtroom confrontations — that genuinely engage. When the film leans into tension rather than exposition, it works. Also, the monument’s majesty is well used: in some scenes, you feel the architecture, the history, the awe.
4. A conversation-starter
Whether you agree with its claims or not, the film makes you think. It invites you to check the textbooks, revisit what you assume, ask why things are presented as they are. That makes it worthwhile for someone who likes films that provoke thought.
What doesn’t work (Flaws)
1. Uneven writing and pacing
The film spans about 2 hours 45 minutes, and I felt the length. It drags in parts. Some scenes exist mostly just to echo earlier ones or restate the same question in different words. The writing suffers from moments of clumsiness: characters spout heavy exposition, and the rhythm becomes talk-heavy rather than story-driven. Several reviewers note this as well, saying “erratic writing” and “disorienting tonal inconsistencies.”
2. Character underdevelopment
Rawal’s character is well drawn, but many supporting characters feel flat. For instance, the documentary-maker played by Amruta Khanvilkar has a promising setup but limited depth. The opposing counsel (Zakir Hussain) has dignity, but the screenplay doesn’t give him real conflict or evolution. At times you realise the film needs more than “ideals vs. system” — it needs personal stakes, internal change — and those are missing.
3. The resolution feels unsatisfying
By the end I expected a stronger conclusion: either a definitive uncovering or a riveting debate that changes something. Instead, the film ends on a somewhat tame note. It poses questions but doesn’t always deliver answers or take us fully through the consequences. One critic put it as “argues loudly but proves little.”
4. Balance between fact and fiction
Because the film deals with history and heritage, it invites scrutiny of its claims. I felt it walked a fine line: sometimes it leans into “what if” territory, but then retreats into “we present this as fiction.” If you come in expecting a rigorous historical documentary, you’ll feel short-changed. If you come in expecting a mainstream courtroom thriller, you may feel the pace and tone are heavy. That tension weakens the impact.
My verdict
Watching The Taj Story was a mixed experience — but still valuable. If I were recommending it, I’d say: yes, go watch it if you have an open mind, are interested in monuments / heritage / questions of history, and don’t mind a film that asks more than it resolves. On the other hand, skip or wait if you want lean pacing, tight scripting, clear-cut answers.
In short: it’s a reason to watch because it dares to be different and anchored by a strong performance. It’s a reason to pause because that ambition doesn’t always translate into compelling cinema. The film’s flaws don’t kill the idea — but they do limit its power.
Why I think it matters
Beyond entertainment, the film taps into a broader conversation in India (and elsewhere) about how history is written, who gets to tell it, and what monuments mean. The fact that legal challenges and public controversies surround the film shows it isn’t just fiction: it enters public discourse. In other words, this film is less about “just watching” and more about engaging.
Personally, I left the theatre thinking about the role of a monument in national memory, about how tour-guides, local workers, archives hold stories we ignore. I reflected on how cinema can serve than just escape — it can stir curiosity.
So even with its weaknesses, I’m glad I watched The Taj Story. It didn’t perfectly fulfil all its promises, but it raised issues I’ll maybe remember. If you go in expecting a flawless ride, you may come away frustrated — but if you go in looking for questions, you’ll leave with them.
Also Read – What Bollywood Can Teach About SIP Discipline
