Pilgrim's Progress

A nice form of innocence, the faithful relation with the novel of John Bunyan are the basic virtues of this charming, first for honesty, film. Modest and charming in some measure, boring in high measure , silly for small special effects, saved by the presence more than acting of the young Liam Neeson and for the fair reflection of the essence of one of the most Anglican books , it is a good introduction or a nice remind.

Obvious, it could be better and the critics are not just wrong but it represents that genre of poor film saved by the reasonable dose of the nostalgia inspired.

0/4 BOMB

Not many people know about Liam Neeson's acting debut for the big-screen. I didn't at first either. As a matter of fact, I wasn't engaged enough to realize Neeson was in this garbage until the credits rolled... It was so bad that its just too hard to give this review a nice intro.

The movie is an inept reimagining on John Bunyan's classic of the same name. It chronicles Pilgrim's journey of righteousness. If Pilgrim's Progress (the book) had a plot that could do well on screen, that's one thing. This is another.

The acting was more tedious than any other aspect of this movie. It was as dry as firewood and about as convincing. The cinematography is in dire need of experimentation. Scenes are either shot in the standard 30's style and no imagination. Then it hit me: There was probably only one person in the room passionate about making this film... the poor investor.

I'm not going to go on criticizing every little detail of this movie. It's not that I don't want to, it's that this movie has a profound lack of attention to detail, among its heaping pile of problems. This movie is a true stinker in every sense of the word, and somehow, Neeson made it big time in spite of it.

In today's generation, film making has often been accused of straying from storytelling to cash grabbing. Some critics feel that high-budget, flashy effects are not what make a movie great, but simply the heart of the story. If this is what catches your attention, the 1989 film: Pilgrim's Progress will surely live up to your expectations.

Ken Anderson's film version of the famous book, also called The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, is a Cristian allegory covering the trials and temptations of Pilgrim, a man who's learned that he's doomed to be destroyed in his current state. His journey to the Celestial City is illustrated with characters and environments that represent the various difficulties that a person following this life path might encounter.

Since these elements each represent a single part of his life, they are used up in quick succession, which makes them hard to really understand and relate to. I never got to learn what they were about, excluding their characteristic names. This was the mistake I made when watching this film, trying to understand these sections, because the truth is, they are not meant to be viewed as individuals. They are quite literally supposed to feel like "cogs in a machine", guiding Pilgrim through his journey. If you find it hard to appreciate this, consider the fact that every main character, aside from Pilgrim and his companions, is portrayed as either strictly good or evil, with a single actor for each. What the filmmaker is trying to tell you is that there are always two forces, pushing and pulling on Pilgrim. In the real world, these forces would be spread out to many people, but not here. It's a simple idea conveyed in different aspects.

In terms of film quality, Pilgrim's Progress unfortunately fails to convey emotion or intensity. Some people try to pin this on the vast amount of material needed to be covered in such a short time, or the novelty of film tech at the time, but it unavoidably falls into amateur direction and writing. The dialogue is very boring and unnatural, and the filming underdeveloped. It's another movie doomed to be eternally compared to the masterpiece of its original book. I really hate to lean on the book so much, but it's necessary to point out that this was an action-packed story, amazingly illustrating the Christian's journey. The movie feels more like an annoying hike through the wilderness, with the devil desperately trying to stop Pilgrim from achieving something that we never truly get to understand the importance of. It's slow paced, which many people will find dispiriting. The entire minute long end fight with Apollyon has no music and so dark it's extremely hard to see what's happening.

On the other hand, the film carries a good message throughout. The way Pilgrim relies on outside help at most steps of the way shows that a Christian's walk is never accomplished solo. Small details, perhaps carried from the book, also enhance the story, like how the echoing voices change tone after Pilgrim's burden is released and his view of God reformatted. The symbolic elements are usually easy to pick up on and understand.

Pilgrim's Progress is a film with strong religious themes but struggles in its execution. The allegorical elements and symbolic details from the original book are present but are not effectively conveyed. The film is slow-paced and lacks emotional intensity, making for a lackluster viewing experience. While the message about the importance of relying on God and outside help is beautiful, it is masked in this film adaptation. Ultimately, those looking for a high-quality cinematic experience may want to look elsewhere, but those in search of a leisurely afternoon activity to learn character growth and mental fortitude from, should consider checking out Pilgrim's Progress.

This has to be one of the worst films ever made. I just finished watching this film in literature class after studying the book. How they were ever able to get this film from such a great book is well beyond me. The acting is abysmal, the direction poor, and the writing is some of the worst I have ever heard. The way the devil just pops in and out of scenes is very much like a power rangers episode. The dialogue between the characters is laughable. A lot of the characters seem flamboyantly homosexual when they're not supposed to be. Not even Liam Neeson saves this film from the dustbin. Don't w.a.s.t.e. your time with the movie, read the book instead.

Its an old movie, give credit where credit is due. WAY easier than trying to read the Old English. Keep in mind it was written in the 1600s. I tried reading this after several recommendations to no avail. If ya know the Bible at all, you will like all the references, hidden Easter eggs. No big name actors except for Liam Neeson, who plays the Evangelist, so, so young in this. Its almost like watching a play. There is a short introduction, in the beginning explaining the book, the author and the time (era) it was written in. Filmed in Ireland, great landscaping throughout the entire film. Length is just over an hour. Give it a chance.