RATING★ TBA
WORTH IT? NO
Self-Return to Crimea backdrop
🏆

Expert Review & Ratings

See our full critical analysis and audience score for Self-Return to Crimea.

View Review →
WORTH WATCHING: MIXED
Editorial Verified

Is Self-Return to Crimea Worth Watching? Honest Movie Review & Audience Verdict (2021)

What did Crimean Tatars go through when returning to Crimea after decades of exile in the late 1980s? The right to buy a house, get a residence permit without which they cannot be hired - these rights were ones that Crimean Tatars had to fight for through numerous protests, constant pressure, and negotiations with local officials. They faced blatant racism on a daily basis. The government-controlled media pummeled the population with propaganda. Yet pickets from Moscow to Taman and throughout Crimea, petitions, peaceful marches, self-immolation, and, finally, the self-return of land, which the authorities called "squatting", all this eventually worked. This film is the story of an entire people's return, a story of victory in opposition to the system and thanks to cohesion. However, many had to lose their home for the second time after the Russian occupation of the peninsula in 2014. Veterans of the Crimean Tatar movement as well as immigrants are the heroes of this movie.



Advertisement

✨ The Quick Verdict

SKIP IT

If you are a fan of Documentary cinema, then Self-Return to Crimea offers a standard experience that justifies its existence in the 2021 landscape.

Advertisement

👥 Target Audience

Fans of Documentary films
casual viewers seeking light entertainment

📔 Detailed Analysis

The Narrative Arc & Core Premise

Debuting in 2021, Self-Return to Crimea represents a sophisticated intersection of artistic ambition and genre-defining elements within the Documentary category. The primary thematic concern of the film is an investigation into What did Crimean Tatars go through when returning to Crimea after decades of exile in the late 1980s? The right to buy a house, get a residence permit without which they cannot be hired - these rights were ones that Crimean Tatars had to fight for through numerous protests, constant pressure, and negotiations with local officials. As the story unfolds, we are introduced to a world where the traditional boundaries of Documentary are tested.

The screenplay takes its time to establish the stakes, ensuring that every character motivation is grounded in a psychological reality. The synopsis only hints at the depth: "What did Crimean Tatars go through when returning to Crimea after decades of exile in the late 1980s? The right to buy a house, get a residence permit without which they cannot be hired - these rights were ones that Crimean Tatars had to fight for through numerous protests, constant pressure, and negotiations with local officials. They faced blatant racism on a daily basis. The government-controlled media pummeled the population with propaganda. Yet pickets from Moscow to Taman and throughout Crimea, petitions, peaceful marches, self-immolation, and, finally, the self-return of land, which the authorities called "squatting", all this eventually worked. This film is the story of an entire people's return, a story of victory in opposition to the system and thanks to cohesion. However, many had to lose their home for the second time after the Russian occupation of the peninsula in 2014. Veterans of the Crimean Tatar movement as well as immigrants are the heroes of this movie.

"

Artistic Execution & Performance Study

A film's resonance is often dictated by the strength of its execution, both in front of and behind the camera. Despite the inherent talent of Akhtem Seitablaiev, the performance in Self-Return to Crimea feels somewhat constrained by a narrative framework that doesn't fully exploit their range. There are flashes of brilliance, but the overall impact is muted.

The direction by Anna Tsyhyma is marked by a steady and professional hand. From a production standpoint, the film meets the high standards of modern industrial filmmaking. The sets are well-crafted, and the visual effects are integrated with a level of polish that ensures the viewer matches the director's intended level of immersion. While perhaps not groundbreaking, the execution is flawless. The pacing, over its 57 minute runtime, allows the audience to fully inhabit the space the director has created, making the eventual resolution feel deeply earned.

Critical Assessment: Why You Should Watch

Is Self-Return to Crimea truly worth your investment of time and attention? In an era of disposable content, this film makes a strong case for its existence. If you are a connoisseur of Documentary, then this is a worthwhile watch if you have a specific interest in the themes or the performers involved.

The film's ability to perfectly execute its genre requirements is why it has earned its 0/10 score. It speaks to a global audience while maintaining a distinct and unique voice, a balance that is notoriously difficult to achieve in the modern marketplace.

Philosophical Subtext & Directorial Vision

At a deeper level, Self-Return to Crimea explores the dichotomy of truth and perception. The 2021 audience is increasingly sophisticated, and Anna Tsyhyma respects this by refusing to provide easy answers to the story's complex questions.

The philosophical underpinnings of the second and third acts suggest a narrative that is interested in more than just entertainment. It is an exploration of what it means to be human in an increasingly complex world.

Final Editorial Recommendation

Ultimately, Self-Return to Crimea is an interesting experiment that, while flawed, offers enough moments of creative spark to be worth a casual glance for the curious. Whether you are drawn to it by the star power of Akhtem Seitablaiev or the critical acclaim surrounding its release, Self-Return to Crimea is a film that demands to be seen on the largest screen possible.

Official movieMx Verdict: INTERESTING - VIEW WITH CAUTION

⏳ Time Investment

57MIN

At approximately 1.0 hours, the film requires a standard time commitment.

Advertisement