Solomon Kane (2009) Reviews

• Solid, old fashioned, sword and sorcery flick

  StevinTasker2010-05-23

  If you took the time to find it, then you wont be disappointed with this solid, old fashioned sword and sorcery movie. The tales of Solomon Kane have been around longer than most, the character first appearing in mass market print back in the late twenties, but they've not been filmed. Many others, borrowing from it have been filmed so you will be quite familiar with the twists and turns having seen them elsewhere. The saving grace here is that it's all done quite well. James Purefoy is every part the tortured warrior and it's good to see Max Von Sydow and the legend that is Pete Poslethwaite up on the big screen. It's a creepy, dark movie at times and the extra effort they've put into the set design and cinematography really helps to set the scene. The story nips along to a satisfying conclusion. The fight choreography is very well done and FX are good as well.

  More

• A good dark fantasy film.

  vorec20012010-02-21

  in my book there are 3 classes of fantasy. high, full of goblins elves and knights in shining amour. low, a fantasy world without all the classical elements no elves no fairies no blazing swords, and dark, born from madman's nightmares and populated with them dark place dark worlds and a serious take on the genre. Kane falls into the latter, for a low budget film its certainly well done, the character is fairly close to the story's, the props and costumes are reasonably accurate. the fighting direction is also true to the character no frivolous swashbuckling here lethal moves to great effect. Kane was not some marvelesque hero wasting motion and energy in his strikes, as one character in a story put it "he is the most lethal swordsmen I've ever seen". (paraphrased). some parts of it could have been handled better the ending or a slight tightening up of the exposition parts, but all in all well worth watching. is it worth seeing yes. but bear in mind this is not a lord of the rings style film, nor is this die hard 1600. there is a lot of dialog and a lot of religious references. this is a dark fantasy film with a touch of horror, aiming to reveal Kane's hitherto unknown origins. if you like to support good independent films go see it if all your interested in is mindless action..... do what you will.

  More

• Excellent dark adventure

  fung02010-08-23

  The criticisms of this film are inevitable, and not entirely incorrect. But for me, Solomon Kane rises above the usual formula in numerous ways. First, the character: much darker and more conflicted than your average action hero. Second, a story that gives that character time to breathe and grow, instead of becoming lost in a morass of action sequences and CG effects. Third, a gritty, uncluttered, near-monochromatic look that's perfectly suited to the character and story, and frequently a sheer wonder to behold. The visuals are evocative of great fantasy artists like Frank Frazetta and Jeff Jones; there are numerous shots in this film I'd happily hang on my wall. Of course, Kane himself is the film's dominant image - and it is a memorable one. But Kane not only looks striking in the flat hat and dark cloak, he has the dour personality to match. And a fighting style that for once fits the mood, and suggests a human adventurer with limited abilities, as opposed to the usual samurai-ninja superhero. IS this truly "Robert E. Howard's" Solomon Kane? Y'know what - I don't care. Howard didn't write a lot of Kane stories, and although I did read them years ago, they left very little impression on my memory. What's more, I have nothing against films that are happy to be 'inspired by' literary works, without slavishly transferring every word to the screen. What Solomon Kane, the movie, DOES get right is the SPIRIT of Robert E. Howard's work - the dark vision, the creepy situations, the sense of a man struggling against forces only dimly understood and much larger than himself. The slow pacing? This is the film's BEST point. Early on, the film focuses on Kane's personality, and his relationships with others. It sets a mood. Too many action films are in too much of a hurry to get to the action. Solomon Kane doesn't cater to the ADD-addled audience, and if that's a mistake it falls in the area of marketing, not creativity. I particularly liked the ending... instead of lingering endlessly over the climactic fight, the film just gets on with the story. Solomon Kane isn't exactly a classic, but it has an appealing simplicity and an inner strength that bigger-budget spectaculars could learn from. I guess a sequel is too much to hope for at this point, but I'll definitely be looking forward to Michael J. Bassett's next creation, whatever it may be.

  More

• Witchfinder General: The Middle-Earth Years

  MilesPieri2009-05-16

  Minor Spoiler Alert! If Peter Jackson deemed it a good idea to remake Michael Reeves classic WITCHFINDER GENERAL, the result might look an awful lot like SOLOMON KANE. Based on Robert E Howard's 17th Century Puritan pulp fiction character, SOLOMON KANE begins in media res, with Solomon and his ill-fated ship crew coming face-to-face with the grim reaper. This particular reaper, unfortunately, is in the employ of Satan himself and damns Kane's soul for a life of wickedness, greed and throwing knives into peoples faces in a really cool way. A year later Kane, now living in an English monastery, is kicked out when the head monk senses our hero will only bring trouble for the 16th Century peaceniks. On the road Kane hooks up with Pete Postlethwaite and his brood, a family of puritans headed for the coast and a persecutionless life in the New Worlde. Needless to say, the family have 'victims' written all over them in huge, medieval script, and things don't go well. Thematically, the story borrows elements from the Howard story RED SHADOWS, but it's really its own beast. Which is a shame, in a way, because the author knew how to weave a damn good tale and SOLOMON KANE's script is certainly the weakest thing about it. We're never really sure why Kane's soul is damned, or how that's connected with the evil magician who has taken over his father's (Max Von Sydow) castle. Oh yes, Kane is also a member of the aristocracy, banished from the land by his dad in true Joseph Campbell fashion. Director Michael J Bassett also seems just a little TOO fond of a certain fantasy trilogy. A horseback chase sequence, while exciting, was even more impressive first time around in FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, while the final assault on Kane's ancestral castle involves a battle in torrential rain, part Helm's Deep, part SEVEN SAMURAI. Most egregious of all is the final showdown between Solomon Kane and, really this is giving nothing away, Old Nick himself. Considering how creative much of the makeup and design work is in the film, and it really is quite striking, it comes as something of a shock to see a certain fire demon turn up for the finale. "You shall not pass!" indeed. And yet....there's so much to like about SOLOMON KANE. As mentioned above, the design work is outstanding. This is a grimy, gritty middle ages that has rarely been seen outside the early work of Terry's Jones and Gilliam. The snowy, grey landscapes of England's West Country (actually Prague, for the most part) are frequently breathtaking. The action scenes are satisfyingly low tech, with seemingly little CGI but plenty of decapitations and arterial sprays. It's a shame they weren't put in the service of a better story, but when the action scenes kick in you're unlikely to be overly concerned. The films biggest asset, however,is its lead actor. It's a little disconcerting watching James Purefoy in this role when you know that he left the production of V FOR VENDETTA having already filmed some scenes as the eponymous character. In some of the many shots where he's silhouetted against the ubiquitous grey and rain-streaked Somerset sky, all flowing cape and stovepipe hat, he's uncannily similar to Alan Moore's anarchist anti-hero. He also shares a similar penchant for dispatching England's enemies with the throw of dagger to the neck. Purefoy plays Kane as if he's in a state of persistent physical agony, which is quite fitting. He's really rather magnificent in the role and brings Hugh Jackman levels of charisma to the part. No small feat considering Kane is the sort of chap who makes Matthew Hopkins look like a member of the ACLU. Purefoy's Solomon Kane may also be the first swashbuckling, sword wielding hero with a British West Country accent since Nigel Terry's King Arthur in Excalibur. Purefoy is the main reason that, at the end of the film, with the suggestion of more adventures to come, you hope SOLOMON KANE will do decent enough box office to warrant a franchise. This first outing is far from perfect, but there's considerable potential and the distinct promise of better to come.

  More

• Soloman Kan was pretty good, its a shame it didn't get as much Advertising as some other Action films get.

  foxycritic2010-02-24

  Solomon Kane was pretty good, perhaps it didn't do well in the States, because there were no American A listers in the cast, but it had Pete Postlethwaite and Max Von Snow apart from James Purefoy in the lead, so you could hardly say it didn't have it's quota of serious actors in it. Yes it was a tad predictable, well it was from the creator of Conan, so you could hardly expect high art. But, unlike you would have expected, it was quite a dark film, one mans quest to redeem his soul, and you believed in it, Purefoy played the complete ruthless murderer and the tortured soul, and in the confines of the film you believed it. It betrayed it's lowish budget, with a lack of major CGI except where it was needed, and at the beginning the model work was a bit obvious (like Conan all those years ago) but instead went for serious good makeup and prosthetics,and the fight scenes when they happened where vicious, bloody and really well choreographed, Purefoy does good action. I really enjoyed this film for what it was, ENJOYMENT.

  More