Talk:4 Days in May

Critical Reception
Sorry, but the critical reception section is completely unreadable to me as a native speaker of English. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This section deleted: Sca (talk)
 * Reviewer of the newspaper "Kommersant" Andrey Plakhov thinks that the film impress by its own story - the improbable story which took place in reality. Even if some German viewers expected to see a more negative description of the Soviet soldiers, they were disappointed.
 * In this film we wasn't heard any dirty words, nobody of the German women were raped. But all this didn't look like a "fantasy" "4 days in May" was designed in the old Soviet cinema traditions but with the impossible plot (it rather able to interest Sergei Loznitsa), the film was a curious genre experiment. The film was also an excellent platform to Alexei Guskov who has demonstrated his acting charisma. Thanks to acting charisma of Alexei Guskov and the boy-actor (Paul Wenzel), the picture works even in the most risky situations, storylines, as evidenced by steel and grateful applause of the public entity against which faded somewhat skeptical smirks.
 * A. Plakhov, "Kommersant"
 * Dennis Ruzaev a critic of the weekly "Time Out " believes that the presence of Alexei Guskov in the film in two guises - the actor and producer - will inevitably affect the entire creative output: "What would von Borris tried to write the characters and build staging, nothing can be done - have to keep many close-ups of the Alexei Guskov "
 * According to the observer "Izvestia" Larissa Yusipova, director made "a quiet, cultured" film, without slogans about rethinking the history, but with a clear humanistic promise.


 * On May 7, 2012 and withdrew from the NTV broadcast tapes showing "four days in May," explained his decision by saying that the intention to show the film has caused a very negative reaction from veterans' organizations and the audience - the party World War II.

Sca (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Under the pressure of facts, Faust was forced to admit that the plot of the "Russian epic" is fiction. Цйфыву (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Incomprehensible paragraph
The following incomprehensible text, apparently a badly garbled translation, is deleted.
 * Faust cited some politic report, which states that the battle was waged, "137 Rifle 90 rd (rifle division) Tank Battalion." 137 Independent Tank Battalion of the 29th Guards. MAF (Mission Aviation Fellowship) May 23, 1944 was renamed the 2nd Tank Battalion of the 96th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment. In early 1945, 90 were assigned to rd (rifle division) 3 armored regiment of the 95th Separate Guards Tank Regiment, 93rd Separate Guards Tank Regiment, 46th Guards Tank Regiment separate breakout. This fact is not refuted by anyone. Perhaps any of tank battalions of the regiment remaining with a 90 rd or any other bodied TB (tank battalion) could get the name of the STB (separate tank battalion) and 137 in the report, for brevity, be called "137 TB 90 rd." This assumption can not be considered seriously - Soviet states have separate tank regiments had in their battalions, and consisted of the companies (such as staff number 010/507 for a single tank regiment), and therefore could not be separated from its membership any battalion.

Sca (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)