This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Barely reaching four reels, Chaplin plays a convict who escapes from the slammer and, needing a change of clothes, misappropriates the clothing of a minister while he bathes. He hitches a bus ride to a small Texas town, a town that just so happens to be in need of a new minister. He installs himself at the pulpit, and thus, acquires both respect and a place to sleep, but of course, neither is a breeze of contentment. There are several entertaining setpieces, notably his congregational depiction of David & Goliath in glorious pantomime, where David, a pathetic little wimp, finds his laughable methods ineffectual, and is beheaded for his efforts. The other great sequence involves the child of the lady he's staying with, who is a little terror, tormenting Chaplin and others in the house. The plot them proceeds to get in the way, as the little kid's father turns out to be an old cellmate, and the sheriff comes a-knockin', but the brevity of the enterprise ends up working most definitely to its advantage, as the problem is resolved quickly and amusingly, and fades out to presumably smiling patrons. A fun little quickie.{Grade: 8/10 (B) / #4 (of 6) of 1923}

This film was one of three that were later combined by Chapin into a compilation that was released to theaters in the late 1950s under the title "The Chaplin Review".The film, though a short, was a very complete story and had a lot more depth than earlier Chaplin shorts. In other words, less emphasis was placed on sight gags and more on the story itself. As a result, it played almost like on of his full-length films.Charlie is an escaped prisoner--an odd situation for Chaplin, I would think. However, being the good guy at heart, he is able to reform himself through the course of the film and live up to the image he created by the 1920s of the lovable Little Tramp (as opposed to the earlier incarnations which were often much more violent and mean).This film is beautiful technically and I have nothing negative to say. It's a fine short film.

I consider The Pilgrim one of Chaplin's weaker efforts, in no small part because of the odd running time; somewhere between a short and a feature, it suffers from too much padding considering its slight story, and it's too short to fully develop the inter-relationships of the characters and plumb the depths of social satire that Chaplin's later features did so adeptly. I also found the character strangely at odds with Chaplin's persona-- someone who is forced to stifle his anti-social tendencies in service to his disguise as a clergyman. I could picture more of a misanthrope in the role, perhaps someone like W.C. Fields, especially in the scenes with the bothersome little kid. It somehow didn't work as well with Chaplin, whose own child-like ego would seem more akin, rather than counterpoint, to the little brat. And with the characters apparent sense of innate honesty, one wonders what he was incarcerated for in the first place. Some amusing set pieces but overall it seemed more of an experiment which Chaplin felt license to indulge in at the end of his First National contract.

The Pilgrim is an outstanding example of Charlie Chaplin at work. So much of what Chaplin did was based on his physical ability to move like a dancer, and this film shows off his agility to the maximum. Charlie tumbles and jumps, turns on a dime, and makes every graceful movement funny. The plot is your basic silent movie plot, with a lot of mistaken identities and a love interest that leads to a plot climax and a happy ending for Charlie--but without the girl. (Charlie almost never got the girl at the end of his films. It was one of his enduring charms.) The difference between this and a typical silent film is the charisma of Charlie Chaplin. There is simply nothing else like it in film history.