Console best movie i've ever seen.

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

sherri7488 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.

Sylvia Durmount 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.

trixiedickets23 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.

mskatherine-spencer 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.