The Story of Ruth

The Story of Ruth

Ruth is an unusual character in the Bible. First she's a female protagonist, one of a select few there. Secondly her story gets its own book in the Old Testament, a short item of only four chapters. Lastly she's the first non-Hebrew protagonist in the Bible since Abraham sired the Hebrew people. It's a simple story in the Old Testament. Ruth is one of two Moabite women who marry the sons of Elimelech and Naomi. When Elimelech and sons Mahlon and Chillion die, leaving Naomi a widow with two widowed daughters-in-law, Naomi decides to return to Israel. One daughter-in-law, Orpah, bids her goodbye. Daughter-in-law Ruth however says she will not desert her. She's going to give up the life and culture of Moab and her people will be Naomi's people in the most famous line from the Book of Ruth.

Inspired by the scriptural tale. Moabitess priestess Ruth is drawn both to a Judean man and to his talk of a forgiving God. After tragedy strikes, she begins a new life in Bethlehem. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Story of Ruth torrent reviews

Ken L (jp) wrote: This is a great movie with detailed scientific information showing the 9/11 attack is questionable, at least in the case of Building 7.

Polly P (ru) wrote: -?,(TM)?? (C)?--?"(TM)(TM),? "" ?(TM)? (TM)?>?(TM)? , Matthew Barber Where The River Bends (TM)(TM) "

Glen M (de) wrote: Mediocre SyFy movie without the usual budget these films usually get. The writing was kinda bad, characters quite hackneyed, and resolution wholly lackluster. It was saved only by the fact that Joe Flanigan was in it, so the whole thing felt like a crap episode of Stargate.

Thilini J (mx) wrote: nice movie on cross cultured love.... d voice of words which dnt cm out frm each n every person, beautify d story.... als d voice of d maid......

Mauro 8 (nl) wrote: Add a review (optional)...

Andrew S (ru) wrote: Jovovich's performance makes the film. The film's content is difficult to watch, but the end result is hardly satisfying. There isn't much here, but it'll work on a rainy Saturday afternoon, lol.

Tero H (fr) wrote: Interesting movie, but some things seemed a bit unbelievable. For instance, how could Betty's husband's personality change so quickly from a nice man to violent? It seemed hard to believe. And some things like women on the street threatening her with machine guns because of her clothes, seemed unbelievable. The film made Iran look terrible. Can women's life be so bad somewhere as this film shows? On the other hand the film is well directed and the actors are acting well..

David E (nl) wrote: Jaws with a wiggly tail, set in Australia. Very Very bad.

Larry Y (ru) wrote: I suppose I should give it another chance

Private U (jp) wrote: I like the progressive-liberalness of this movie.

Jesse G (mx) wrote: The most underrated masterpiece ever.

Cameron J (it) wrote: Audie Murphy went to Hell and back, then went to western films and back to Hell... as in war (Sorry for your loss 43 years ago, Murphy family). Anyways, "after everyone goes home, and I'm left here on my own, I will run straight to Hell and back!" I'm not usually one to quote music that was unveiled after the '80s, but with "One", Metallica already addressed the struggles of some sucker in WWI, so it's only fitting that the song "Hell and Back" be placed in the context of a discussion of a WWII film... that came out about 26 years before they even formed. It doesn't seem like they wasted all that much time to start talking about how rough WWII was, but they had to hurry before Audie Murphy got a little too old to be a soldier again. Hey, I think it's a cool enough novelty to have this war biopic star the guy it's about, and it would have been really cool if they coupled that with the novelty of making him old as dirt, so I would have dug it if they waited another couple decades to make this... even though Murphy didn't live past 1971 (Poor guy didn't live to see the formation of Metallica). Oh, woops, I just went and spoiled the epilogue of this film, but that's the advantage of living in the future, to go with the disadvantage of having to be stuck with Metallica. I'm kidding, people, I like Metallica just fine, even though they don't have too much more consistency than this film, which is decent and all, but not even consistent in freshness. There's a unique novelty in general to this film's featuring its protagonist as a biopic in the starring role, and as a war film, it has a few other twists, but when it falls to formula, it falls pretty hard, with very mid-20th century Hollywood tropes to its plotting, characterization and, for that matter, fluff which tends to get a little too fluffy for its own good. Cheesy superficialities plague much of this film, whether it be the comic relief that is frequently flat, or at least dated, or the dramatics which succumb to glaringly unsubtle histrionics, which take ostensibly accurate story elements and corrupt their believability through scripted contrivances, the sting of which goes exacerbated by sentimental directorial atmospherics which range from simply unsubtle to pretty cornball. It's as if the film is trying too hard to sell its dramatic kick, and the harder it tries, as irony would have it, the harder it is to get a grip on the weight of a dramatic narrative concept that feels a tad thin, what with all of the fluff that is consistent in cheese, yet not even consistent in tone. What further limits a sense of urgency to this drama is a certain tonal inconsistency, which doesn't simply leave shifts between color and intensity to jar, but even mixes up context by coloring up conceptually serious aspects, not often, mind you, yet still enough to further limp tensions out. Retardation to momentum is further well-secured by unevenness to pacing, because, at 106 minutes, this film's seemingly tight runtime is achieved through a combination of thinning and bloating, placing little attention to exposition, and plenty of attention to repetitious, almost episodic filler, which wear down momentum until aimlessness sets in, slowly, but surely wearing down dramatic bite. This film could have been very compelling, but in the long run, there's a certain superficiality that really shouldn't be here, and inconsistencies which further dilute kick, until the final product falls as formulaic, cheesy, uneven and all around underwhelming. The film might even be forgettable, but while it occupies your time, it doesn't entirely waste it, for it's even aesthetically commendable. Maury Gertsman's cinematography really isn't particularly impressive, but it's just rich enough in its coloration to catch your eye, particularly when it distinguishes the color of already distinguished production designs that go immersively well-orchestrated by Robert Clatworthy and Alexander Golitzen. Again, there's not much to the visual flavor of this film, but style is adequate enough to help liven certain elements up, even though it doesn't much serve selling the depth of this story concept. This story needs all that it can get in order to compensate for an interpretation so superficial that it makes the formulaic story concept itself seems superficial, which shouldn't be the case, seeing as how Audie Murphy's story is a harrowing one that many soldiers can relative to, and everyone else can respect as sweeping and tense. Of course, that's just the subject matter, whereas the execution, even within Murphy's script, co-written by Gil Doud, has its flat spells, broken up by highlights within, say, the script, which at least crafts its share of colorful set pieces to be sold as pretty entertaining. Well, as sure as sunshine, if Jesse Hibbs succeeds at nothing else, it's sustaining a certain entertainment value through directorial pacing that is tighter than structural pacing, highlighted by some tensely well-staged action sequences that also mark heights in dramatic resonance, which is lacking, but there at times in which it's most needed to establish some sense of conflict and human weight. There is a certain intimacy to Hibbs' efforts, though not as much as there is to the efforts of a cast full of dated performances, some of which are dated to the point of mediocrity, while other hold up well enough to be rich with charisma, if not a little dramatic weight, with Audie Murphy himself, as himself, all but carrying the film with his particularly grounded charisma, and charming chemistry with his peers. Honestly, each individual strength in this film is rarely, if ever particularly outstanding, but collectively, the pros outweigh the cons enough to make a reasonably compelling film that entertains and occasionally tenses up, even though it could have bitten so much more firmly. Formulaic, cheesy with its fluff and histrionics, - to the point of superficializing a sense of narrative weight, and inconsistent with its tone, pacing and overall structure, this film falls as a pretty forgettable war drama, flavored up by the decent visual style, worthy subject matter, lively direction and endearing performances which secure Jesse Hibbs' "To Hell and Back" as an almost thoroughly entertaining and sometimes effective, if ultimately underwhelming account of Audie Murphy's struggles as a farm boy-turned-military man. 2.5/5 - Fair

Kim C (us) wrote: The book was pretty good, but...