In some ways, I liked this movie. True, the acting could have been better, but the screenwriters', producers', actors' and directors' (and anyone else involved with this movie) hearts were in the "right place". When I compare this movie to the "Story of Ruth", which came out in 1960, I find that this movie is better because it follows the Bible; it is based on the scripture. I would'nt say it was exactly like the book in the Bible, but when I viewed certain scenes, I was thinking "they got it right this time". For me, I thought Carman was pretty good as Boaz; Sherry Morris made a wonderful Ruth. The actress who portrayed Naomi did a great job, too, although I thought she was a bit young to be the mother-in-law of Ruth.

The movie told of a journey of faith of two women. The love and faith they had for a God they could not see was warm. There were moments where things were questioned but, in the long run, their hearts still followed after God.

To me, it was a journey of faith just to get the movie made from the first draft of the script down to the last clip of the film. The entire journey took much longer and much thought than most high dollar films and turned out better as well. Don't stand there mocking the "Ancient of Times" when you don't understand what you can read... hold in your hand.

Fred Griffith was good in the role of Mahlon. Rebecca Holden could not have done a better job in the role of Beth unless she was Beth. Sherry Morris was excellent as Ruth... always giving... following without question, always in support of her mother-in-law Naomi. Eleese Lester was perfect for the role of Naomi... You found yourself crying with her as well as laughing. Dan Haggerty was on a grand scale as Simeon. Lana Wood was exceptional in her role as Tani. Then there is DJ Perry as Benjamin... (there was one scene that I wanted to knock him out) a very believable talent in that role. Carmen made Boaz come to life once again. Christopher Flores was a grand young David - future King of Isreal. Eli was played by Russ Stine. It was the second final role of his life, his first was that as family man and friend. Rest peacefully in the arms of God... you have well earned it.

The entire cast did a class job in portraying the characters they were given. Even those I didn't mention. Job well done y'all...

God bless y'all in everything you do...

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.

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.

The Girls' Group I am in is studying the Book of Ruth right now, so I was very excited when I found this movie on Netflix. However, it was a huge disappointment! The actors' make-up was far too prominent, and the costumes garish. Naomi even had a french manicure, and Ruth was wearing flip-flops! Boaz's plastic Mardi-Gras necklace was not much better. Overall, this movie showed a neglect towards accuracy. The Jewish customs and their view of God were misinterpreted- Naomi spoke of God as a Christian would, not a Jew. The conversation was casual and modern. There were also quality issues. When Ruth, Orpah, and Naomi were setting out, the wind was so loud you could hardly hear the dialogue. Also, the physical attraction between Boaz and Ruth highly disturbed me. And the fact that Boaz fired his workers simply because they could not tell him the name of ONE gleaner. In the book, Boaz treats Ruth well because of the kindness of his heart, not her beauty. In fact, her looks are never mentioned in the bible. His remarks are pointed and shmoozy- not appropriate for the times. Ruth's mother-in-law was a case. It made it rather obvious why Ruth went with Naomi! She had nothing to go back to but an over-controlling pagan mother with serious gossip issues. Long story short, I would not recommend this movie to anyone who has read the book of Ruth or who knows anything about ancient Israel.

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!

I was excited to watch this film as I am very familiar with the story of Ruth from the Bible.

Right from the beginning I was put off by the modern hair and makeup combined with the Bible times clothing. The combination just didn't mesh. I was also amused by the modern Christian lingo used in the film, like Naomi telling her neighbors to "have a blessed day." Either make the film modern or keep things relevant to their time period, mixing and matching elements doesn't work.

Beyond this, the acting was overplayed and non-realistic. I could almost forgive this for the awesome cello music played throughout the film though (quite loudly).

I did find it interesting how Orpah was written as very conflicted about leaving Naomi, but only doing so after she had chosen to stay. Also, the teenage angst between Ruth and Boaz did not read well considering they are adults.

The story wasn't bad but a lot of the elements weren't as good as they could have been. I did give this film a fair shot, but it did not live up to expectations.

I give this title 3/10 stars.

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 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.

Are there more exciting stories in the Bible? Definitely. But those who complain about the lack of excitement are missing the point. This is a love story, one of the most beautiful love stories of all time. The love of Ruth for her mother in law and the love of Boaz for Ruth. At first, I too, was surprised at the age of Naomi- until I remembered in Biblical times most girls were married off by the age of 15 many by the age of 13, so a woman could be a mother in law by the time she was 27! I highly recommend this story to anyone who wants to see a well told Bible story. The only complaint I had was the modern language they used some times but that was minor. ALL young women should see this show when they get married to remind them of how a daughter in law should treat her mother in law.

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.

Just watched this movie and I had to comment on how poorly it was put together. The direction was horrible, the acting was sub par, and the editing and post production lacked any notable sign of skill or understanding of how to present a story. I could forgive a lot considering that this was obviously made on a very small budget, but the areas that need improvement are not constricted by money. Everyone in front of the camera needs to take a lot more acting classes. Yes, this is a slow moving and very boring Bible story, but that is no excuse for uninspired acting. The acting is not helped by one of the worst directing and editing jobs I have ever seen in a movie. The shots look like they were set up without thought for the plot or character development. The ridiculous editing further adds a layer of confusion, making it painful to watch. They need to go back to the drawing board with this one. Start over and this time think things out before you shoot.

This movie looks like it was slapped together in a weekend. Everything about it looks like it was not clearly thought out. Actors appear to have been hired five minutes before shooting, as their delivery of lines is at best flat, and at worst just plain horrible. The shots are poorly thought out for the sake of continuity and lack any kind of coherent plan as to furthering the story. The editing and sound design are even worse. Actor's lines are garbled and mixed too deep within the other background sounds. The progression of cuts are often confusingly assembled which further weakens the ability to follow the plot. Over all these points make this movie look like a rush job. It is one thing to make a low budget movie. It is quite another to fail to plan and work with the script and actors, along with the editor, to turn out something that looks like you actually cared about the final product.

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.

When I was 13 years old a version of The Book Of Ruth came out with Stuart Whitman, Tom Tryon and Elana Eden in 1960. Eden was in the title role and the two men played her husband. It was a scaled down DeMille like production replete with bible quotations and a bit of sex thrown in just to show what you're giving up. Ruth if I recall was a Moabitess temple girl and that Moab crowd liked to live good.

Poetical verses from King James with a little sex was always good to sell a biblical film, a tried and true formula. But in The Book Of Ruth: A Journey Of Faith there's no sex and the people speak like they could be from anywhere be it Chillicothe or Cheektowaga. Sherry Morris is certainly no Elana Eden in the sex appeal department. Peggy Wood was Naomi the mother-in-law that Ruth decides to stick with and make the journey to Israel with. She was light years better than Eleese Lester.

But Boaz the second husband is played here by Christian entertainer Carman Licciardello. He plays him like the Las Vegas lounge singer he was before Carman took up fundamentalist Christianity. Who told this guy he could act?

The film was produced by fundamentalist Christians and the parameters of their religion made filming this impossible to do in an entertaining fashion. The acting is terrible, the direction is static and the whole pace slow and boring.

This will be good for Sunday school and little else.

One would think that any film that takes the Bible for it's inspiration would be anything but boring. That is not the case. There is just so much nastiness going on in the Old Testament; mass killings, plagues, jealousy, hatred, etc. It would seem to be a gold mine of story ideas and hooks. The Book of Ruth proves that you can make a boring Bible movie. Granted, the story isn't one of the most compelling in the Old Testament, but the film makers have managed to take what little excitement and drama there is in the story, and leech it completely out. The actors are incredibly mediocre. They invest each scene with such blandness that it is hard to care about the plot or characters. At times they are so bad you would think they were given their lines a minute before they started to roll. I think the director wants you to notice that he has dressed up his actors in period wardrobe and that this is enough to create a Biblical flavor, so the acting is really secondary. It is not. Walking around in robes and sandals does not cover up poor acting and a lame story.

I can forgive the film makers for using the least offensive book from the Bible. You want the biggest audience you can and you lose that if you offend anyone. Or do you get more publicity that way? But anyway, least offensive can also mean least exciting. You might try Judges next time (esp 19!). So to begin with the story isn't exactly interesting or even mildly captivating. Yet faced with this kind of material to work with the director has managed to turn a bland story even more bland. The actors are out of place, out of character, and woefully unprepared for this period piece. The scenes are shot with little thought for dramatic effect or emotional emphasis. Not that there is much to be found anyway. The editing is uninspired, pedestrian, and often poorly executed. What you end up with is a weak story made weaker by a factor of ten.

I was excited to see this movie, because I love the story of Ruth. But, the gushy emotions displayed in this movie were TOO MUCH. It was not very balanced. Sometimes less is more. The scenes of crying and weeping and gushy emotions were just too predominant. It made it hard to watch. Not because I felt drawn in, but because it was too exaggerated. I almost turned it off, but, left it on because I wanted to make it to the end. Advice I would give the actresses and director would be to not make the emotion the focal point, but the story. The displays of strong emotion would have been fine in quick splashes here and there, but not in long drawn out scenes one after the other.

You gotta do better than this. Lackluster film making at its best. First you need to pick a more exciting subject. Picking the one Old Testament book that is a real sleeper was your first mistake. You have so many other books to chose from, why Ruth? Among the other books we encounter jealousy, pettiness, ethnic cleansing, misogyny, homophobia, racism, infanticide, genocide, filicide, pestilence, megalomania,and sadomasochism. Instead of picking any of these topics that fill up most of the book, the film makers opt for a bland interpretation of a very boring story. Yet they still manage to make this dull story even duller. The acting is sub par and it doesn't look as if much care went into the casting for each part. Some parts are incredibly miscast. Some are only slightly miscast. It is as if not wanting to offend anyone, the film makers ended up treading so softly that they barely made a footprint.

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.