MovieManChuck 0/4 BOMBNot 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.

deacon_blues-3 I think that most of the other commentaries on this film are more concerned with PP as allegory and literature. What they fail to take into account is that this film, by contrast, is primarily concerned with taking the reality behind the allegory seriously. In this, it follows Bunyan himself, who would have been horrified by the prospect of literature students studying his little book as mere literature, when he himself was motivated by the same zeal that also motivated the makers of this film, namely, to save souls from hell! The film is narrated by George Beverly Shea (Dr. Billy Graham's favorite baritone vocalist). Ken Anderson Films is a shamelessly evangelical Christian ministry. I myself first saw this film (and Liam Neeson as well) at a Baptist Church movie night. I was much impressed by both the spiritual content of the story and the arresting screen presence of Neeson, whom anyone could see was headed for stardom. Granting that the production is extremely low-budget, and the acting is quite amateurish at best (except for Neeson, of course). The film is faithful to the message of the book, although condensed into a very abridged format. I applaud the filmmakers for keeping their dramatic devices simple and unsophisticated, as Bunyan himself would have approved. Their point was always the universal plight of the sinful human soul, and it's salvation through the Word of God and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, not artfully reproducing each minute literary detail of Bunyan's allegory. My candid advice to the other commentators on this film: please be gracious enough to allow real Christians who care about the true purpose of Bunyan's book to use it as it was intended without harsh criticism. PP is not mere literature, it's only worth is in service to the gospel of the living Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. When you study it as mere literature, you do it and John Bunyan's memory a great disservice, as he would tell you himself if he were here.

dentonsfarm The Pilgrim's Progress is the greates English Alegory and one of the greatest works in the English Language. Why could they / did they not strive to make this film stand up to par with Bunyan's classic masterpiece. Just because the film was obviously low budget doesn't mean they have to have low imagination also. But, it was a Ken Anderson Production and that means don't watch it if you you want to live to see the next day. True, Liam Nesson is in it. As a matter of fact this was his first movie debut. Take in mind, that I love The Pilgrim's Progress, and I believe that it can undoubtedly be made into an awesome movie, but I would advise anyone, "Stay away from this version."

judiciary Although it was a worthwhile aim to transfer the greatest allegory in the English language to film, this work utterly fails as art because it makes wholesale changes in a book which every student of fine literature should know by heart, and for no good reason. The sets are beautiful and the pace is satisfactory, but making the devil pop up at every turn and ending the movie with him being a "boogey man" rather than one who, as the Bible says, transforms himself into an "angel of light," ruins this seemingly amateur effort at filmography.