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.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.
Featured reviews
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 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.
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.
This is such a beautiful film... an honest film. It drove some powerful emotion from me seeing it through the eyes of a Mother and it offers so much to so many... incredible strength, true friendship, uncertainty, loyalty, love, and of course faith...Their tale of love in so many different forms, blood relation not relevant, hits the true definition of the word; no rules, unconditional, and undying.
Accolades to the actors, for the truth in their craft was achieved, deriving emotion from their audience, well done! The cinematography, top notch, and set design, to take dreadful circumstance, making it appealing to the eye, a serious creative talent.
Accolades to the actors, for the truth in their craft was achieved, deriving emotion from their audience, well done! The cinematography, top notch, and set design, to take dreadful circumstance, making it appealing to the eye, a serious creative talent.
This movie was clearly made very cheaply, but it's clear it was made very earnestly.
The dialog sounds too modern. The costumes range from plausible to absurd. (Boaz wearing a deep purple tunic looks like a Las Vegas lounge singer, as another reviewer noted). Modern hairstyles and make-up among most of the main cast. The acting is mostly soap-opera level, and occasionally comically bad. Dan Haggarty brought some much needed dignity, although his part was disappointingly small.
But the setting seems pretty spot-on, and the story itself, adapted straight from the Biblical book is fine. Ahistorical in some ways, but I find it hard to dislike, despite these flaws.
The dialog sounds too modern. The costumes range from plausible to absurd. (Boaz wearing a deep purple tunic looks like a Las Vegas lounge singer, as another reviewer noted). Modern hairstyles and make-up among most of the main cast. The acting is mostly soap-opera level, and occasionally comically bad. Dan Haggarty brought some much needed dignity, although his part was disappointingly small.
But the setting seems pretty spot-on, and the story itself, adapted straight from the Biblical book is fine. Ahistorical in some ways, but I find it hard to dislike, despite these flaws.
Did you know
- ConnectionsEdited into A Journey of Faith: The Making of Book of Ruth (2009)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 31m(91 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content