"The Story of Ruth" is a 132 minute spectacle based on the Book of Ruth in the Bible. The problem is that Ruth is a relatively short book...and a HUGE amount of padding was needed to make such a lengthy film. And, like so many biblical epics of the 1950s-60s, most of the story is pure fiction....created out of the heads of the writers from the studio. So, if you are looking for a story close to the source material, then you might want to skip this one.
When the story begins, the child Ruth is sold to the temple where Chemosh* is worshiped and children are sacrifices. Ruth is excited when she later is chosen to be sacrificed...but her joy was cut short when they found a blemish on her and sacrificed a different child instead. Of course, none of this major portion (the first 50 minutes) of the film is in the Bible. Where the biblical story actually begins is after the death of Ruth's husband...and Ruth and her mother-in-law don't escape from Moab as much as they just left and headed to Judea.
The second half of the story is closer to the source material. And, Ruth's love interest, Boaz, is played well by handsome Stuart Whitman. All the racist and religious hatred of Ruth by Judeans was completely fictional...but otherwise it was a decent representation of the book.
So is it any good? Well, it entirely depends on what you are looking for in the movie. If you want one that sticks close to the book of Ruth, then you'll be disappointed. But, if you don't mind all the fictionalization, it is pretty exciting in some places...especially the first portion which is mostly about child sacrifice. I really wish, in hindsight, that the film had bee all fiction and they hadn't bothered with the Ruth tie-in....as the fictional stuff was pretty interesting.
My review: For a biblical purist, a 4 or 5. For someone who just wants to be entertained, a 7. For me, I think it merits about a 6 overall. The acting is quite good by Whitman and Elana Eden in the title role.
By the way, John Banner of "Hogan's Heroes" fame is in the film as the Moabite king. But he sounds like his voice was dubbed by another actor...which is a bit strange.
*Chemosh worship was apparently a thing in ancient Moab and it did involve child sacrifice. I did a bit of research about this and, apparently, so did the writers.
When the story begins, the child Ruth is sold to the temple where Chemosh* is worshiped and children are sacrifices. Ruth is excited when she later is chosen to be sacrificed...but her joy was cut short when they found a blemish on her and sacrificed a different child instead. Of course, none of this major portion (the first 50 minutes) of the film is in the Bible. Where the biblical story actually begins is after the death of Ruth's husband...and Ruth and her mother-in-law don't escape from Moab as much as they just left and headed to Judea.
The second half of the story is closer to the source material. And, Ruth's love interest, Boaz, is played well by handsome Stuart Whitman. All the racist and religious hatred of Ruth by Judeans was completely fictional...but otherwise it was a decent representation of the book.
So is it any good? Well, it entirely depends on what you are looking for in the movie. If you want one that sticks close to the book of Ruth, then you'll be disappointed. But, if you don't mind all the fictionalization, it is pretty exciting in some places...especially the first portion which is mostly about child sacrifice. I really wish, in hindsight, that the film had bee all fiction and they hadn't bothered with the Ruth tie-in....as the fictional stuff was pretty interesting.
My review: For a biblical purist, a 4 or 5. For someone who just wants to be entertained, a 7. For me, I think it merits about a 6 overall. The acting is quite good by Whitman and Elana Eden in the title role.
By the way, John Banner of "Hogan's Heroes" fame is in the film as the Moabite king. But he sounds like his voice was dubbed by another actor...which is a bit strange.
*Chemosh worship was apparently a thing in ancient Moab and it did involve child sacrifice. I did a bit of research about this and, apparently, so did the writers.