अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंThis movie is an adaptation of "The Book Of Ruth" from the bible. Powerful themes of tolerance and acceptance gained through love and understanding shine in this production.This movie is an adaptation of "The Book Of Ruth" from the bible. Powerful themes of tolerance and acceptance gained through love and understanding shine in this production.This movie is an adaptation of "The Book Of Ruth" from the bible. Powerful themes of tolerance and acceptance gained through love and understanding shine in this production.
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Based on the avg rating received this is certainly one of the under- appreciated films made based on a Bible book in my opinion. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it and appreciated the imagination and (even) insights added to the story by script-writers which helped bring viewers' attention to all the little but important things they might have missed when reading the texts in the Bible. Good acting in general from all the main characters in film. The transition of scenes usually followed a good sensible flow. At the end of the film viewers should certainly be able to fully appreciate the idea of "faith" by the book of Ruth, blended with a soft taste of love and romance - which was a nice touch I reckon. Recommended for all.
Why can't Christians learn to take heed to the details?
Why in the world would Naomi wear lipstick? And why would Ruth have French manicure? It doesn't matter how well told the story is, if details like these are overlooked. Naomi too had a non-historical coiffure (hairstyle).
No. No. No.
That is the easiest and best covering method I can use. There are of course something called poetic license, but when that license goes strictly against what the source says, something is clearly wrong. It is a lie.
It is bearing false witness - and in conflict with the Word of God, as such, which in this case is the source of the history.
Why in the world would Naomi wear lipstick? And why would Ruth have French manicure? It doesn't matter how well told the story is, if details like these are overlooked. Naomi too had a non-historical coiffure (hairstyle).
No. No. No.
That is the easiest and best covering method I can use. There are of course something called poetic license, but when that license goes strictly against what the source says, something is clearly wrong. It is a lie.
It is bearing false witness - and in conflict with the Word of God, as such, which in this case is the source of the history.
I'm giving this film a 3 out of 10 because of the effort which I believe must have been put forth in making this production. In a word, the film is awful. A noble attempt, but flawed and failed. It could have been worse--the costumes could have been blatantly incorrect and the acting could have been a little worse, and the dialogue perhaps even more fake. But not much worse. The main actors each have a moment or two were they finally seem to shine as actually being into the part (the actor who played Boaz was, in my opinion, the most believable in the film), but most of the time they trudge along plainly reciting their lines, seeming to only go through the motions. The plot is very plain and the acting is dry. The most basic and boring scenes are hopelessly drawn out. The dialogue seems very contrived and often downright cheesy. Perhaps if the characters seemed to actually be feeling the emotions and if they had the experience, feelings, and action to back it up, they could convey these lines believably. But they cannot. The film absolutely lacks emotion and interest. It's only redeeming factor might be the character of Boaz, whose performance (and delivery) does add a slight bit of humor among the shoot-me-now lines. Eleese Lester (playing Naomi) is also notable for having perfectly portrayed the oh-so-kind and sweet, sacrificial motherly love of her character; she actually reminds me very much of someone I know; but still we never really see the deep source of her kind spirit, and we never really connect with the inner life of her character. The voice-overs of her thoughts, perhaps meant to correct this deficit, only seem cheap and laughable. Besides this, all of the characters (and even the dialogue and plot, at times) seem very Americanized. It looks like a bunch of modern Americans trying to play the parts and act like these people from the stories they've heard, and trying to do the things that they've been told. Not good.
Besides that, the audio quality is quite poor throughout the film, particularly during the outdoor scenes. If they couldn't get quality audio to begin with, then they should have at least gone back and dubbed the dialogue in a studio afterwards; even if it had then been slightly unsynchronized, it almost certainly would have been more bearable than the final results the audience is forced to sit through. The film's photography manages to be mostly decent, except for a few sunspots (lens flare). While there can certainly be artistic purpose for sunspots, they don't do any favors here (and probably not in any other period film) as they only draw attention to fact that there is a camera there, and thus modern technology. The only appropriate place for sunspots in a film like this might be in a scenic sweep of the landscape, but as Ruth begins her journey they are very prominent and nearly covering her face as she speaks. Aside from that, the costuming seems just a little off to me, not quite authentic, but perhaps I'm wrong..
The film was certainly a noble dream by those involved, but its realization has not done it justice; this dream has not survived the journey to the waking world--at least, not without being significantly butchered.
Besides that, the audio quality is quite poor throughout the film, particularly during the outdoor scenes. If they couldn't get quality audio to begin with, then they should have at least gone back and dubbed the dialogue in a studio afterwards; even if it had then been slightly unsynchronized, it almost certainly would have been more bearable than the final results the audience is forced to sit through. The film's photography manages to be mostly decent, except for a few sunspots (lens flare). While there can certainly be artistic purpose for sunspots, they don't do any favors here (and probably not in any other period film) as they only draw attention to fact that there is a camera there, and thus modern technology. The only appropriate place for sunspots in a film like this might be in a scenic sweep of the landscape, but as Ruth begins her journey they are very prominent and nearly covering her face as she speaks. Aside from that, the costuming seems just a little off to me, not quite authentic, but perhaps I'm wrong..
The film was certainly a noble dream by those involved, but its realization has not done it justice; this dream has not survived the journey to the waking world--at least, not without being significantly butchered.
This is just sloppy film making. First of all the acting is incredibly sub par. It appears as if the choice of actor for each part was made in a very haphazard manner. Did they get everything set up, camera and crew ready on the first day of shooting, only to discover that they needed actors? That's what it feels like. One could imagine the producers and director scrambling around pulling people off the street or calling in favors from friends just to fill empty parts. This gives the whole story a home movie feel. You can tell that so many characters roles are filled by individuals who are not even remotely right for the parts. Usually you find one or two individuals who are not right for the part they play in a movie. But here almost everyone is miscast. Resulting in performances that are very flat, obviously awkward, and at times painful to watch. All in all it looks like a rush job. I realize that small independent film makers are extremely limited in time. The old saying time is money is quite true. But that doesn't excuse this effort. Next time put a little more thought into essential elements like your cast and it will show in the end product.
This is actually a nice little film. I felt that some of the actors did an excellent job. The viewer understood why Ruth was willing to follow Naomi to a strange town and leave everything she had never known. Naomi was extremely kind and good-hearted, and the actress was very good at portraying these qualities. Likewise, the actor playing Boaz was very convincing in his genuine love for Ruth. The music was absolutely incredible. Just beautiful. All of the scenery looked genuinely from that time period, and the clothing was very authentic. I did feel the movie dragged in several parts where there was no dialogue, but on the whole I feel that this is one of the better Biblical stories.
क्या आपको पता है
- कनेक्शनEdited into A Journey of Faith: The Making of Book of Ruth (2009)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- O Livro de Ruth
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 31 मि(91 min)
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें