"Solomon Kane" premiered in my country at the annual Fantastic Film Festival and I was lucky enough to accompany a friend of mine who managed to arrange an interview with writer/director Michael J. Basset who came to the festival to present his film. This was before I watched the movie and, although it might not be very objective of me, it definitely helps to enjoy and appreciate the movie even more when you just listened to an enthusiast director defending, illuminating and promoting his work. The truth is that I was already looking forward to see "Solomon Kane", but after even more so after hearing out Michael J. Basset. He's a truly spirited and devoted narrator, who explained that he insisted on writing and directing the film himself even though the production studio preferred a more famous name, simply because he grew up with the stories of Robert E. Howard. Howard is particularly known for creating the character of Conan the Barbarian. That character, immortalized on film by Arnold Schwarzenegger, pretty much single- handedly generated the Sword & Sorcery hype in the early 80's, whereas Solomon Kane always inexplicably remained a vague and unexplored side character in spite of its dark and potentially fascinating persona. Michael J. Basset explained that was hoping for a revival of the Sword & Sorcery sub genre, especially after the gigantic success of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, but that it sadly never came. With "Solomon Kane" he hopes – and surely a lot of wildly enthusiast fans with him – that this type of entertaining cinema will revive after all.
Somehow I doubt, however, that "Solomon Kane" will become a great success. The main character is intriguing, the production values are more than adequate, the screenplay is solid enough (albeit a bit superficial and ordinary) and there are multiple powerful sequences, but the atmosphere of the film is too dark and the violence is too graphical, I'm afraid. Especially if targeted at the fans of the aforementioned "Lord of the Rings" movies, I presume "Solomon Kane" will come out as slightly too disturbing and cruel. This is terrific popcorn entertainment for brutes and savages, like myself, who think that "Lord of the Rings" is boring and other nowadays fantasy stuff like "Stardust" and comic book darkness like "X-men" is for kids. Unfortunately, the niche market for genuinely grim Sword & Sorcery movies is rather selected.
During the intro, the film introduces Solomon Kane as a relentless and barbaric warrior who's even feared by the men fighting under his command. He thinks to have stumbled upon a treasure, but instead he comes face to face with a devil's disciple who claims Kane's soul to pay for all the sins he committed. He manages to escape and find shelter in a monastery where he repents and makes a personal oath with God never to kill another man again. Meanwhile, the 17th century British countryside is besieged by an evil masked sorcerer who enslaves innocent peasants and recruits backwoods villains for his growing army. When the eerily masked sorcerer kills the members of a traveling family that harbored him and kidnaps their beautiful teenage daughter, Solomon Kane is forced to break his oath and kill again but this time in the name of God. The battle takes him back to his birthplace, where another couple of unpleasant surprises await him. "Solomon Kane" is obviously intended as the beginning of a franchise. There's plenty of room left open for a sequel, a prequel or even a few spin-offs. I sincerely hope that Michael J. Basset will be offered the chance to write and direct them. He deserves it, not only because of his enthusiasm or because he loves the characters, but also because he clearly grew as a director since his previous two smaller and more modest genre films "Deathwatch" and "Wilderness". The film itself is well-paced, the dialogs are fluent albeit a bit primitive and the choreography is excellent. "Solomon Kane" isn't a non-stop series of bloody battles and splatter effects, but still a handful of sequences are hard to stomach. James Purefoy isn't the world's greatest actor, but he's definitely charismatic enough for the title role, and he receives fine support from the more experienced actors surrounding him, including Max Von Sydow and Pete Postlethwaite.
Somehow I doubt, however, that "Solomon Kane" will become a great success. The main character is intriguing, the production values are more than adequate, the screenplay is solid enough (albeit a bit superficial and ordinary) and there are multiple powerful sequences, but the atmosphere of the film is too dark and the violence is too graphical, I'm afraid. Especially if targeted at the fans of the aforementioned "Lord of the Rings" movies, I presume "Solomon Kane" will come out as slightly too disturbing and cruel. This is terrific popcorn entertainment for brutes and savages, like myself, who think that "Lord of the Rings" is boring and other nowadays fantasy stuff like "Stardust" and comic book darkness like "X-men" is for kids. Unfortunately, the niche market for genuinely grim Sword & Sorcery movies is rather selected.
During the intro, the film introduces Solomon Kane as a relentless and barbaric warrior who's even feared by the men fighting under his command. He thinks to have stumbled upon a treasure, but instead he comes face to face with a devil's disciple who claims Kane's soul to pay for all the sins he committed. He manages to escape and find shelter in a monastery where he repents and makes a personal oath with God never to kill another man again. Meanwhile, the 17th century British countryside is besieged by an evil masked sorcerer who enslaves innocent peasants and recruits backwoods villains for his growing army. When the eerily masked sorcerer kills the members of a traveling family that harbored him and kidnaps their beautiful teenage daughter, Solomon Kane is forced to break his oath and kill again but this time in the name of God. The battle takes him back to his birthplace, where another couple of unpleasant surprises await him. "Solomon Kane" is obviously intended as the beginning of a franchise. There's plenty of room left open for a sequel, a prequel or even a few spin-offs. I sincerely hope that Michael J. Basset will be offered the chance to write and direct them. He deserves it, not only because of his enthusiasm or because he loves the characters, but also because he clearly grew as a director since his previous two smaller and more modest genre films "Deathwatch" and "Wilderness". The film itself is well-paced, the dialogs are fluent albeit a bit primitive and the choreography is excellent. "Solomon Kane" isn't a non-stop series of bloody battles and splatter effects, but still a handful of sequences are hard to stomach. James Purefoy isn't the world's greatest actor, but he's definitely charismatic enough for the title role, and he receives fine support from the more experienced actors surrounding him, including Max Von Sydow and Pete Postlethwaite.