Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueThis 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.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Avis à la une
It's cleaner to watch than 95% of what's out there these days... but. for the purpose of the film, I think they stray pretty far. They kept a few key scenes from the Biblical story, but then overlay the whole thing with a very Western, modern worldview. If it has been a story told and re-set in modern days, it would work. But they made it out to be a dating story, when the whole center of the story was Ruth's faith in God, changing from the faith of the Moabites, to faith in God. It is entirely possible they loved each other, but they made it far too modernized. Love may have played a part, but not the modern gooey feeling or dependence on feeling for decisions. They were faithful to the laws of God.
And, um, guys, there was not a temple... David built it, three generations later...) nor was it a public scandal, except for the strict fact that Ruth was from Moab.
It was, however, great fun to see Carmen acting.
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.
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 found that the Book of Ruth Journey of Faith was written with great integrity holding true to the Biblical account of Ruth. I loved how the incorporated David! I can not speak of the acting or budget but I believe that the story held true and because of that it will have a great impact to those who watch it. There are other films out there about Ruth that do not hold true to the story. It might be hard to watch through some of the cheesy acting but that seems to be true of most Christian films to date. I believe that will change with time. But I'd recommend this film over any other film about Ruth because of how it stays true to the story. The through line they wrote with David gave it a wonderful perspective of the whole story. So, if you love the story of Ruth as I do I believe you will like this film.
Le saviez-vous
- ConnexionsEdited into A Journey of Faith: The Making of Book of Ruth (2009)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- O Livro de Ruth
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 31 minutes
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant