The Book of Ruth: Journey of Faith

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.