Talk:Burnt by the Sun 2

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force.

Russia: Performing arts Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the performing arts in Russia task force.

Name

In my exposure to this film, it seems that it is more commonly known in English as "Burnt by the Sun 2: Exodus". While not an accurate translation, Exodus is more familiar to English speakers than the word "prestanding". (Interesting to note that the original title "Burnt by the Sun" is also an inexact translation of "Utomlennye solntsem", literally "Exhausted by the sun".) I would recommend changing the title of the film to "Exodus", rather than leave it as "Prestanding". The New York Times referred to it as "The Exodus: Burnt by the Sun 2". You can find a review of it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/arts/11iht-burnt.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22Burnt%20by%20the%20Sun%202%22&st=cse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasja77 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. If there are more reliable sources confirming the name of this film, then it can be moved as necessary. I'll put a note on the talk page of the film project to see if anyone else can help with this. Thanks again! Lugnuts (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I ask not to delete the information about BadComedian and his movie review like you did once. This guy is famous YouTube blogger in Russia and he made amazing in-depth analysis of the movie which is worth watching for understanding why and what for this film has been shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.137.38.206 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources. End of. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Goblin's blog (Tupichok Goblina) reliable so? What's the difference? Both of them are just bloggers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.137.38.206 (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misreading of cited Kirk Honeycutt article

In the Reception section, this article says: "The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt criticized the film for 'sticking too closely to the Kremlin's approved version of World War II and for its promotion of Orthodox Christianity.'" That's not true; if you read his piece, that quote is him describing the position of Russian critics. He's actually contrasting their negative opinion with his own positive opinion. 74.72.174.197 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]