The Book of Ruth: Journey of Faith

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.

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.

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.

As previously stated, there is much room for improvement, mostly with the sound in my opinion. The background noise (Wind, crowds etc) made dialogue hard to hear. However I am pleased somebody made a movie about Ruth's love for her mother-in- law. The gentleness of this movie makes it good viewing for kids and adults alike. The colours were bright and cheery, something not common in many Old Testament movies. I think someday someone will make a replica and it will be fantastic, just like "One Night With The King" - the book of Esther, and some of the other 'Bible Series' movies with 'big name' actors in the lead role. 10 lines is a lot to cover for a short review!

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.