I love this movie so much

Undescribable Perfection

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

A Samuel G. Engel Production. Copyright 1960 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening simultaneously at the Paramount and the Normandie: 17 June 1960. U.S. release: June 1960. U.K. release: 24 July 1960. Australian release: 3 November 1960. 11,836 feet. 132 minutes.SYNOPSIS: In the ancient land of Moab, a young girl named Ruth is trained to be a high priestess to the stone god who demands the sacrifice of innocent children. But when she meets Mahlon, a young Judean goldsmith, and learns of his faith in a merciful god of spirit, she begins to doubt her own beliefs and eventually flees from the Moab altar during a sacrificial ceremony. Mahlon is blamed for her heresies and sentenced to slave labor in the great stone quarries. Though Ruth arranges for his escape, he is mortally wounded before they can reach safety. Before he dies, however, he takes Ruth as his wife and she vows to remain always with his mother, Naomi. The two women cross the River Jordan to Naomi's former home where Ruth meets two of her late husband's kinsmen, Tob and Boaz, both of whom long to marry her. But, because of Judean law, Ruth is obliged to wed Tob, her dead husband's next of kin. On their wedding day, however, Ruth speaks her heart and publicly declares her love for Boaz. Tob relinquishes his claim and Ruth is free to marry Boaz. As they wed, the prophet Jehoam proclaims that Ruth's future grandson will be the father of David, the King. NOTES: First of only two movies and four TV appearances for the actress billed here as Elana Eden. Negative cost: $5 million. VIEWERS' GUIDE: Strictly for adults with the patience of Job.COMMENT: There have always been writers like Bernard Shaw and Eric Linklater who thought it smart to turn historical and bible stories on their heads. Take the tale of Samson, for instance. Instead of portraying him as a strong man, make him a puny weakling. Instead of a patriotic Jew, turn him into a treacherous Philistine. This isn't just clever character metamorphosis, it's also a means of fitting into your story those incidents that seem out of place or inconsistent or otherwise difficult to explain. For example Samson's vicious actions like killing thirty men to strip them of their clothes, or torturing foxes, or burning down grain fields, vineyards and olive orchards. But there seems little excuse for meddling with the story of Ruth. It's not only one of the most beautiful books in the bible, it's also one of the shortest. A simple story of a gentile girl's faith and fortitude, of her love, trust and obedience. Now what does Hollywood do with this inspiring little history? It turns the whole tale upside down by casting a Jewish girl as the foreigner, and a whole tribe of gentiles as the Jews. It makes the innocent young heroine a trainee high priestess of the hideous idol that feasts on the blood of children. Skipping over equally ridiculous but less abominable alterations, it then works up a love interest between the heroine and "Tob", an interest that never existed on either side. In place of a simple, direct, warm love story, we get a stupid triangle situation.Okay, let's not be too critical. Let's just look at the movie as pure fantasy. Yet even in this realm the movie fails to impress. The script moves too slowly, the acting is generally awkward, the direction often clumsy and flat-footed.

This movie is a pleasant Old Testaments gem! I'm surprised it gets panned by many who demand accuracy. Perhaps people missed the point. Aside from the usual few Hollywood add- ons (e.g, Ruth was a Priestess, the death of Mahlon, the two Moabite spies, and the exact issue of Levirate law with Tob being first kin and the idea of love, not obligation for marriage) it is reasonably accurate. After all, which Hollywood movie is completely accurate? Ten Commandments? More importantly, it captures the spirit of Ruth. In essence, of the spirit of Ruth as a stranger following devotedly her mother-in-law and Jehovah, a new God for her, it is accurate. It depicts Ruth's altruism (she does not accept gifts and nothing but faith to her mother-in-law and God matters), Boaz's character of integrity (he has ethics, even higher than Ruth when he has to judge), the blind conversion of faith (to Judaism), and the lawful acceptance of non-Israelites very well. I think people missed these themes but rather are looking for a word-by-word account. The problem with a word-by-word account is that the Bible is missing too much. And then to expect a 1960 Bible movie to show Ruth going to bed with Boaz potential ruins her altruistic character. OK, maybe Delilah can go to bed with Samson, but to see Ruth, a most faithful, altruistic character do such a thing isn't consistent with the character development.Thus, in spirit, this captures the Biblical story perhaps better than any other fictitious (e.g, The Robe) or supposedly accurate (The Ten Commandments) Hollywood movies. Unfortunately, those points are missed. Given the Book of Ruth is quite short, to make a two-hour movie, writer Norman Corwin and director Henry Koster took the liberty to make a smooth storyline. Since it lacks the exciting, epic battles and dramatic miracles of other Biblical movies, it won't appeal to many people. Rather, this film is more about human devotion, kindness and traditions. Acting was very strong by female leads Peggy Wood and the beautiful Elena Eden (who hardly made a movie afterward) but Stuart Whitman and Tom Tryon were average. Peggy was excellent and charming and Elena was very poised as what one might expect of her since she would be the mother of a great line. Jeff Morrow was enjoyable in his role, too. Sets, script and color cinematography were very good.However, most people want fun and adventure. This film doesn't have those elements but rather it's about human search for spiritualism, goodness and faith.

This story, unlike many other Biblical epics, almost does justice to the Biblical account of the Book of Ruth. And the liberties taken with the Bible have to be forgiven. It is after all, a movie and dramatic liberties have to accepted - as long as they are done in a tasteful manner. This is one such case.You can't improve on God's take of the human existence but this one almost made it. A very moving and lovely musical score, not the traditional trumpet glaring of a Roman gladiator stadium - but full of peace, inspiration, and love.The screenplay is full of dramatic statement, point-counter-point, and leaves the audience panting for more. The background is set expertly of a Moabite (present day Jordan) priestess although not overly exaggerated. What follows after wards, with the return of the two women to Judea, and from that point on is fairly adhering to the Biblical account.Stuart Whitman is Boaz to the "nth" degree although sometimes he does look kind of dumb in not knowing what to do. Peggy Woods rises to the occasion and truly deserved an Oscar at least for best supporting actress in this role. What a veteran.Who obviously was not a veteran yet rose to the top as star of the movie was the beautiful Israeli actress Elana Eden. Serving at the time as an Israeli machine gun expert in the Israeli army, she won a contract with 20th Century Fox for several movies and TV parts. They were too few and after around 1967, she just disappeared, (perhaps voluntarily), from Hollywood.Her acting ability in this movie was more than adequate and in fact, outstanding. Her beautiful dark eyes used to enhance her dramatic ability when the scene called for it was in constant play between her eyes and those of Peggy Wood expressing concern and love for one another. There were really few words from Ruth in Judea except perhaps one of the most beautiful words ever uttered and used in marriage ceremonies throughout the world...Where ever you go I will go... And your God shall be my God... Bravo Elana. And God bless you all who participated in this treasure of a movie.

I remember seeing this on its first run and its color was marvelous. The human sacrifice scene to the god Moloch was chilling.Of particular interest is the dialogue between Mahlon (Tom Tryon) and Ruth (Elana Eden) about religion. Mahlon, the Hebrew, tries to explain to Ruth, a pagan virgin votary, how his people could worship an invisible God. This deep theological discussion came about because Ruth asked the question. Mahlon gave a wonderful illustrative example.He said: "Imagine that you are soldier in the battlefield and you wish to pray to save your army and for victory. How would you do that?"Ruth answered that she would think of the image of her god and pray. Mahlon then explained that in that case, the god she would be praying to would be invisible.