Solomon Kane (2009) User Reviews

Surprisingly nice...

[paul_haakonsen · 7/10 · 23 December 2015]

I found the "Solomon Kane" DVD in the local secondhand DVD store for about $2, so I bought it without knowing what it was about. Truth be told, then it was the cover that convinced me. And now having seen it I can only say wow, I have been missing out on something great.

This is a dark fantasy movie with lots of action, a deep storyline, great characters and good special effects. And I must admit that I was more than pleasantly surprised with this movie.

The story is about Solomon Kane, a man who left his past and heritage behind; a master of war, destruction and terror. His very being is cursed and is bound for Hell, and the Devil is sure to collect. But having changed his wicked ways, Solomon Kane seeks redemption, but can he find it with Hell's forces in hot pursuit?

I found the various aspects of the storyline to be interesting and nicely tied together. Director Michael J. Bassett managed to put together an interesting movie containing a good combination of action, fantasy and adventure.

James Purefoy was phenomenal in the role of Solomon Kane. I can't claim to be familiar with the work of James Purefoy prior to "Solomon Kane", but this movie sure did make a lasting impression.

"Solomon Kane" is an entertaining movie that you should watch if you enjoy the fantasy movie genre.

Very Much A Surprise

[damianphelps · 7/10 · 30 March 2022]

For me this came out of nowhere. I wasn't expecting much but was absolutely delighted by just how good Solomon Kane was.

Great acting, again a surprise, dazzling special effects and a story that was enjoyable to follow.

Good film fun :)

Witchfinder General: The Middle-Earth Years

[MilesPieri · 7/10 · 16 May 2009]

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.

It could have been so much more

[Fluke_Skywalker · 6/10 · 24 February 2014]

'Solomon Kane' does twice as much with half the budget of similar genre films such as 'Van Helsing', 'Season of the Witch' and the recent 'Conan the Barbarian' (Which, like 'Solomon Kane', is based on a character created by Robert E. Howard). Unfortunately, doubling up those films still only adds up to average.

For a while it feels as if 'Solomon Kane' might actually be something special. Anchored by James Purefoy (channeling Hugh Jackman), and supported by strong performances from Rachel Hurd-Wood and the late Pete Postlethwaite, the first act firmly establishes a character and stakes that we care about. But around the half way point it begins to run out of steam, settling for generic genre conventions executed with little of the flair and none of the human focus evidenced earlier in the film.

'Solomon Kane' had all the pieces to be something special. That it ends up merely being a serviceable time-waster is ironically more frustrating than if it were simply a bad film.

solid film.

[beerwine900 · 7/10 · 11 March 2010]

Solomon Kane I'll start by pointing out that in no way is SK a copy of Van Helsing, the media and certain unaware people have been comparing the two just due to the characters clothing resemblance like the big hat, well Solomon Kane has been wearing the big hat since he was created in 1928 as stories written in weird tales, where as the 2004 movie van helsing was the first time the character had been portrayed wearing the big hat and being a monster hunter rather than just the killer of count Dracula, if anything the 04 VH movie copied Solomon Kane, anyway moving on to the review:

I was excited about seeing this since i'm a big movie fan and enjoy reading books i was waiting with anticipation for the release, the movie started strong with a impressive fight sequence and good special effects,there was none of the shaky camera action scenes which i find ruin any action movie when you can't see whats happening, everything from the props to visuals made it a very dark and almost creepy atmosphere, although i would class it as a action/fantasy there was elements of horror thrown in too, during the middle of the film the action slows for a while but that just gave me time to appreciate the performance given by James purefoy, other than resident evil i'd never really seen him in anything but i will defend his performance as Solomon Kane since i don't think anyone else could have played the part as confidently as him, supporting cast wise they mostly perform well.

There was a few continuity issues with the fact that Solomon never seemed to run out of single shot pistols and even if he'd thrown one at someone or something he always had both a sword and dagger but along with a few other things i must say that i did enjoy watching this and if you're a fan of the genre then i recommend a watch.

over all i give Solomon Kane 7 out of 10

Good, gritty sword & sorcery

[lothd · 7/10 · 31 January 2010]

I was familiar with the 'Solomon Kane' character before I watched this film, both from the original stories and the Marvel Comics incarnation of the 1970s. The film is based on Robert E. Howard's creation, not on any later story and is all the better for it. The characters and their actions are believable, the atmosphere is great and the special effects are fine. There are copious amounts of sword play as well as sorcery - something that other R. E. H. adaptations in film have been sadly missing (notably 'Conan the Barbarian'). Michael J. Bassett manages to make an exciting film out of what could have been just another good-versus-evil story. Recommended for all fans of gritty fantasy.

Given the circumstances, it was a good movie

[siderite · 7/10 · 12 June 2010]

The film is one of those things that you immediately "feel" it is wrong. No known actors except old guys like Max von Sydow, who get a small role anyway, an almost unknown lead character and a lot of attitude, like the movie is taking itself really seriously. Most of this kind of movies end up as pretentious flops.

Solomon Kane, however, did not. It was a reasonable movie, given the low production values and the video game like story. The thing is, the people working on it obviously made an effort. Strangely enough, it seems this sort of effort is what lacks in many films these days, even high budget ones, so this lifts Solomon Kane quite a lot.

Unfortunately, the film was not great. It was, I feel, the best they could do under the circumstances, and I applaud that, though. Better than The Book of Eli, but still the same superheroy feeling.

different

[Kirpianuscus · 2 July 2016]

a character. with a coherent story who reflects his transformation. fragments of a form of Middle Age - social aspects, people, sufferance. a vulnerable hero. fantasy. and fight scenes who are parts not axis for film. for the fans of genre or for simple viewer, Solomon Kane is different by many other films from the same genre of the last decade. because the story is not a pretext for the statue of the lead character. because the black and white are mixed in inspired manner to give a fantasy precise dose of realism. because the historical references - the Dutch costume of Solomon Kane , first - are good points for a seductive story about a mission and about noble duty. so, an interesting film.

Laughable script met with on-par action.

[im_goode · 6/10 · 15 May 2010]

This is very much a typical low budget "Good vs. Evil" story. If you can swallow the poor acting and boring script it has some neat effects and action. It's not half bad for a Saturday afternoon viewing. (5/10 = It's exactly half bad, but whatever)

You can predict most every scene and there's no real surprises, the whole movie takes itself way too seriously. The script is cliché at best, and the acting is quite poor all around featuring no good performances. Along with that there are some mildly entertaining monsters, and some decent swordplay.

If you have kids that were anything like I was when I was growing up, I'm sure they'll enjoy it (be warned it is a bit gory). Or if you're just a big fan of campy sword and sorcery movies, it might be worth a rental. But to anyone else, I'd recommend watching another movie.

Beginning good but the movies looses the plot

[ghasl1 · 3/10 · 8 May 2010]

I watched this movie in thinking this will be awesome it was in the beginning then it just suddenly got dull, they just lost the plot even if it was just redemption it didn't elaborate or continue on. It was like watching a silent movie without subtitles. There were little action scenes the baddies were pathetic didn't seem to pose a threat. And it was like that throughout the movie and when it came near the end it was going to be good because of the boss scene but nope just weary me out again. At the end I said 'huh that it'. This is one of those movies that had potential and then you feel let down after watching it.

People that already seen it like me what was the whole idea of the baddies what was their purpose or motives and why were they showing scene after scene of rain, mud and wagons of captured prisoners. What were they going to do with the prisoners and why did they need them. Its still on my mind because it made no sense why they had to keep showing this.

Solid, old fashioned, sword and sorcery flick

[StevinTasker · 8/10 · 23 May 2010]

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.

Thrilling and exciting Sword and Witchery movie plenty of imagination and fantasy

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 26 July 2011]

Sword-and-Sorcery epic with a Puritan priest as lead accompanied briefly by a mercenary army and taking on multiple adventures , monsters and dangers . Thrilling and spectacular movie full of imagination and fantasy that introduces us a brave hero and appointed to juvenile public and full-blooded adventure aficionados. Sword-and-sorcery saga with stirring action , spectacular images and fantastic scenes including witchcraft and necromancy . This is a tale of fantasy , magic , imagination, blood and wizardly set in a mythical world from Middle Age full of barbarisms. This is a bemusing adventure saga inspired on Robert E Howard's pulp tale , it stars Jemes Purefoy as Salomon Kane who join forces with some soldiers to vanquish forces of evil . Salomon is a super-swordsman , a mythic and valiant warrior taking on heinous forces of devil and evil minions . Once a mercenary of Queen Elizabeth I struggling Spanish in North of Africa about 1600, and Ottoman city , Solomon met the Devil's Reaper and aware he was bound for hell. Barely getting away , he soon renounced violence to atone for his past sins , seeking out redemption in a life of peace . He retires to a monastery in Great Britain , fighting to live as a man of peace since then, to atone for his sins. That is until the hoodlums of magician Malachi (Jason Flemyng) abduct a Puritan girl Meredith Crowthorn (Rachel Hurd-Wood) and cruelly slaughter her family (Alice Krige, the recently deceased Pete Postlewaite , and Patrick Hurd-Wood , actual brother of Rachel Hurd ) before his own eyes, forcing Solomon to take up arms and go back to his violent manners once more to rescue her . The nasty sorceress's followers kill the family and he seeks vengeance on villains who massacred them . Salomon whose father (Max Von Sidow) was imprisoned and his kingdom was wiped out by the magician attempts to save the young girl , some soldiers soon joins him . They undergo on a perilous trip to find the fortress , confronting magicians , spectres and dangerous adventures. Our hero fights the evil hoodlums of brutal sorcerer who seeks the total power and leading a vibrant ending.

Based on the comic books by Robert E. Howard, this exciting film packs noisy action, fantasy, adventure, witchery , and rip-roaring fights . James Purefoy is good as Solomon Kane , a bloodthirsty British pirate who, after facing off enemies in Africa lost his soul to the evil . Breathtaking images , spectacular battles and duels and lots of amusement and entertainment . Made on a fairly big scale with spectacular set design and glimmer photography . Quite budget for an UK/France/Czech Republic co-production and lavishly produced by Samuel and Victor Hadida. This entertaining picture contains frenetic action , tension , necromancy, and moving action scenes . The film is full of freaks and bemusing situations ; it is quite entertaining because being a laborious and intriguing adventure tale with lots of violence , guts and gore . Colorful and evocative cinematography by Dan Laustsen . Very good special effects , grand production design , being the filming locations in Barrandov Studios , Prague and England . Impressive musical score composed and conducted by Klaus Badelt. The motion picture is well directed by Michael J. Basset . He's a fine director , his first film ¨Deathwatch¨ achieved quite success , he went on with ¨ Wilderness¨ and in post-production ¨Silent Hill : Revelation 3D¨ . The film will appeal to fantasy buffs with action enough to make it worth looking in on . In other words, it seem likely Conan-Sword-sorcery genre enthusiasts and juvenile viewers will be delighted because thrills, action and adventures are brilliantly presented and edited to offer the maximum impact. Rating : 6,5 ; it's an old-fashioned B film on an acceptable scale and basically enjoyable because of it.

Reminded me of the sword and sorcery videos of the 80's

[kurgan_uk · 5/10 · 24 February 2010]

Back in the mid 80's my brother and i would chuck a couple of pounds together and hire 4 or 5 videos for the weekend. We would get a couple of top rated vids and a couple of cheap vids. Invariably the cheap vids were straight to video sword and sorcery efforts that all seemed to use the same studio sets and all had the same basic plots, Hero strives through adversity to save young lady from clutches of power hungry wizard.

Solomon Caine,despite being from a great storyteller, reminded me of those cheap videos. Same basic plot, just has better special effects. Watch it if there is nothing else you would prefer to watch, but for £6 you're not going to get your moneys worth.

Sword & Sorcery and Popcorn!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 14 April 2010]

"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.

"Visually Stunning Well Crafted Experience"

[kimi_layercake · 7/10 · 11 October 2010]

"Solomon Kane" is a movie set in the 17th century at a time when Evil was wide-spread with people turning to the Devil for refuge with little or no faith in the Almighty. People were either being enslaved or killed by the Devil's "Reaper", so-called people who have sold their soul to the Devil for dark powers. The hero, Solomon Kane was an evil warrior, who did many wrong deeds. When he came to know that his soul is damned, he decides to mend his ways and turn to non-violence for His mercy. But fate has something sinister in store for him.

Cast-wise, Good job. James Purefoy was excellent in the titular role. Frankly speaking, I had little faith in a lesser-known actor playing a titular role, but James proved everybody wrong. He was like the shining armor for the movie. Others, even though little-known, played their part decently enough to leave any bad impression.

"Solomon Kane" strength is clearly its stylish direction, taut storyline, fine character development, ample sword play, and adequate running time. Kudos to the Director Michael Bassett, who gives the movie a very stylish look. The camera-work, slow-motion sequence, action choreography added great depth to the movie. Giving scope for character development is very important and it was properly showcased.

The movie derides itself a bit in the ending. Like most action movies, the ending is reduced to One-Versus-All fight, giving a little unrealistic feel. Also, the ending came a little too fast. Meaning, the So-Called-Very-Bad-Guys were overpowered quite quickly and easily by the protagonist. Having said that, this movie is far better than most movies in the similar category.

Overall, "Solomon Kane" is a Very Good movie reduced to Good movie till the end. But, this well-crafted movie is a visual treat & satisfactory watch.

My Verdict: 7/10

Nice surprise

[ssvfolder-1 · 7/10 · 22 May 2010]

I must admit, I wasn't expecting much from this movie. In the recent years there were so many different flops in the fantasy movies area, that even as a fan I started to dislike the genre, and ever since Lord of the Rings I saw maybe 2 movies from this genre that I liked. In the last two month I saw two excellent movies that restored faith in this genre. One was Dante's inferno - a truly epic animation, and the other one is Solomon Kane. I saw a review that was titled - "what Van Helsing was suppose to be". I absolutely agree with it. The pure action, mixed together with non intrusive religious high moral values - is a blend which might influence our money driven morals. This movie actually proves that movie does not have to have Grade A stars, which don't necessarily suit the movie, but rather good acting cast that works all together. Now for more specifics: Story: Simple and done to death - yet it still works 6/10 Star (James Purefoy): Good actor. Loved him in Rome. Here he is good, but I'd prefer someone with more muscle, and more brutality. 7/10 Action: Simply great.I want more 9/10. General cast: It's good, well balanced, and functions well together. 7/10

This one worth it.No regrets.

A Nutshell Review: Solomon Kane

[DICK STEEL · 6/10 · 22 January 2011]

Created by Robert E. Howard (best known for his Conan the Barbarian), Solomon Kane has origins in pulp fiction before the leap onto the big screen now, starring James Purefoy as the titular British adventurer who wanders the world in search of evil to vanquish. Serving as an origin story to introduce the character to new audiences, it's quite the standard swords and sorcery film with a tinge of theological elements, with little surprise being offered as it focuses on the man's redemption.

Damned by the devil's reaper and escaping from the clutches of having his soul claimed in North Africa, Solomon Kane finds peaceful refuge in an English church, spending a period of overturning his violent past, before being expelled to seek his own destiny. He hooks up with the Crowthorn family (the head of the household played by the late Pete Postlethwaite) who are en route to a new life in America, before discovering that most of England is now under the clutches of the mythic sorcerer Malachi (Jason Flemyng), and it is up to our hero to try and kill a lot of birds with a single stone, with the liberation of the land, the rescue of damsel in distress Meredith Crowthorn (Rachel Hurd-Wood), and hopefully, redeeming his soul as part of the process.

The storyline hinges on Solomon's downward path from ruthless warrior to a peace loving man who renounced violence, before he's being dragged back to the killing game again, with swords and that occasional (not sure why though) use of the pistols. The first half dwells on this dalliance in not wanting to break his vow of non-violence, until evil comes knocking on his doorstep, and throwing his vow out of the window in order to rid scores of faceless goons dispatched through sword parries and thrusts, coupled with plenty of CG blood and decapitations.

To expand the mythos Solomon's backstory gets brought up through a series of flashbacks, which will suggest to you its significance early in the film on how the finale will come together. Writer-director Michael J. Bassett's story and direction follows a very formulaic path that shortcuts at every opportunity, such that the final assault and battle in a castle has loopholes of The Rock proportions. The story plods between the action sequences, and just about throws plenty of stuff from a zombie sequence to a crucifixion scene even, just because it can. Purefoy perpetually scowls throughout the film, though looks convincing enough to be the skilled warrior who relies on a rapier and a cutlass on each hand.

This is one of those films that isn't great, but isn't all that bad either provided you haven't been jaded by countless of other similar looking films, and with the lack of a main villain to complement and make the hero look good, choosing to hastily introduce him only at the end. For an action adventure it doesn't have any surprise elements, with a series of action and CG that seemed to have that ring of familiarity to it.

The Cure For Insomnia

[chicagopoetry · 3/10 · 2 March 2010]

I'm desperately trying to stay awake while watching the movie Solomon Kane. I have about a 20 minutes to go. If it gets any better, I will come back here and let you know, but somehow I doubt that will happen. Solomon Kane looks like it is based on the video game Dark Watch, and it sounds like it is based on the video game Legacy of Kane, but unfortunately neither is true. I hear it is based on some comic book or graphic novel or pulp fiction or something else that I have never heard of, but whatever it is based on, there is nothing original in this excruciatingly boring movie. The atmosphere is stolen from the movie 300, which wasn't that great in the first place. The tedious overacting takes itself so seriously that it's nearly hypnotic, and to be clear I mean that in a bad way. The plot is practically non-existent: violent guy trying to be nonviolent meets friendly family, friendly family is murdered, violent guy becomes violent again. All the characters are stereotypes taken from Waterworld or Book of Eli or The Hills Have Eyes or, whatever, just choose another apocalyptic slash fantasy slash wizardry movie that you have seen and there you have it. Someone, somewhere, said, this is how to make a movie: use a blue filter to make everything look mysterious, add plenty of slow motion shots of horse hooves splashing in murky puddles, add snowflakes hovering around while two boring characters are speaking to each other, and oh yes rain pouring down dramatically to distract from the fact that nothing is really happening, and don't forget the black silhouettes walking toward us with fire blazing behind them, and lots of torches burning, and of course blurry fight scenes during which it's not clear what is actually happening because we don't have the budget for the gory special effects so just throw in the sound of metal clanking, and, oh, by the way, don't let any character live long enough for the audience to understand them, relate to them or sympathize with them, and cross fingers, hope that fans of sword and sorcery films will eat it up, even though it is complete doo doo, and go straight to video, do not pass GO . . .

Better than expected

[dizillusion · 7/10 · 3 December 2012]

First of all, I decided to watch Solomon Kane because I wanted a good old fashioned "dark hero" fantasy film and, to that extent, I was not disappointed. Of course, it does have plot-holes and some details are unrealistic but if you can get past them you will find this to be a thoroughly enjoyable film.

The visuals are good: dark, cold places. In the first part of the movie, I felt like I was watching Sleepy Hollow. The falling snow and wandering through the cold woods was quite atmospheric, although I couldn't help but wonder why doesn't the damn snow settle on the ground after days of continuously falling. The pilgrim family is austere and believable, with good costumes and expected lines coming from simple, religious people.

With the first major happening in the plot (the bad guys attack) the quiet snow turns into pouring rain. Actually, the only moment when we do get to see the sun is when it's prettily setting behind a church (a false sense of hope, if I may afford a spoiler hint).

The villages/settlements were also pretty realistic, with just the right amount of mud and even a black death cameo.

Now, regarding character: the film catches Kane's inner struggle quite well, with both his recurring nightmares and the discovery of his purpose (see movie tag). We don't really see him become a better man because he's not; he is left to be seen as a sort of hero of circumstance, forced to keep fighting to make up for his past sins.

And the fighting was, indeed, satisfactory. I was expecting a killing machine and that is what I got: bad-ass hero (with the obligatory black cape), dual-wielding swords and pistols and killing pretty much anyone who gets in the way. Combat was satisfactory and maybe a bit on the gory side, considering we get to actually see him drive his sword through and across many an enemy's chest/body. Also, heads rolling. Action packed, fun to watch. Not any ridiculous special effects (Van Helsing style): most of the "bad guys" were made with make-up, and CGI was kept to the minimum necessary.

Story-wise, the film keeps it simple. At the ending you realize the story-line is actually a circle that has finally been closed. Also, I am happy the film-makers didn't adapt this to a love-story, keeping to the true point of this tale.

All in all, the film is worth watching, I recommend it to any fan of the fantasy/sword-fighting/Gothic genre. A pity that it's fairly unknown, with other, poorer-quality films being much more popular.

Something feels wrong

[wuhugm · 1/10 · 28 April 2011]

At first it's like a slow paced adventure, a traveler join up with others traveling a beautiful world Then enemies start appearing also then people start going out of character. They said and act things that is not of their character and all of them overestimate Solomon's ability I had thought that Solomon Kane is some sorcerer or something because he kept saying "my powers" and everyone seem to think he can massacre the entire mob while those mob had them hostage.

The family kept telling Solomon to kill them all, all while still had swords touching their neck. So unreal and what was that final battle, so ridiculous

Excellent dark adventure

[fung0 · 8/10 · 23 August 2010]

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.

Enjoyable, if slowly paced...

[ajs-10 · 7/10 · 24 February 2010]

I saw this film last year at the cinema and quite enjoyed it. It has now made it to TV and I thought it was worth a second viewing… Here's what I thought second time around. 'Solomon Kane' is based on a character created by Robert E. Howard, the writer who also created the, 'Conan the Barbarian' in the 1930's. So as you can guess, I was quite keen to see what the filmmakers have done with him. It is the 1600's, and Solomon Kane, who left his home at a young age having argued with his father and having thrown his brother from a cliff, is the captain of as ship in North Africa seeking treasure. What he finds is not what he bargained for; he finds the devil's reaper who tells him that because of his evil ways, his soul was forfeit. Not wanting to go to hell, Kane denounces violence and vows never to kill again before escaping. That's the set-up and here's a brief summary before I give you my thoughts (summary haters please pray for redemption while I write the next paragraph).

Back in England, Solomon is staying at a monastery when Father Michael asks him to leave. He has had a vision and it's time for Solomon to move on. With great reluctance Solomon leaves and heads west, towards his home. He is attacked on the road but is rescued by William Crowthorn and his family, wife Katherine, oldest son, Edward, younger son, Samuel and daughter, Meredith. They travel on together and Solomon begins to form a bond with them, particularly with Meredith and the young Samuel. Meanwhile, a band of warriors lead by a mysterious masked man is stalking the land, taking everyone they see as slaves or turning them, by evil magic, into soldiers. The family come across a place where some people had tried to burn a witch; everyone was dead with their eyes burnt out. They find a girl, the only survivor. Taking her with them, they continue on their journey, not realising that she is, in fact, the witch. Solomon discovers the deceit but the witch escapes, but not before marking Meredith. The family are then caught by the band of warriors and Meredith kidnapped. Enraged, Solomon now breaks his vow and kills as many of them as he can. Fatally wounded, William tells Solomon that he can redeem himself if he saves Meredith. This is now Solomon's mission, but does he have the strength of will to carry it out? That's enough summary for now.

Although quite slowly paced, I found this film very entertaining, the action sequences were very well done, the dialogue well paced and the special effects were excellent. I thought the mix of action and fantasy was very well judged, the balance was about right for me. Very good performances from James Purefoy as Solomon Kane, the late Pete Postlethwaite as William Crowthorn, Rachel Hurd-Wood as Meredith Crowthorn, Patrick Hurd-Wood as Samuel Crowthorn, Jason Flemyng as Malachi and Max von Sydow as Josiah Kane.

I suppose you can't help but compare this film with the Conan the Barbarian films. I found it stood up well, set in a time that people can relate to and with much more dialogue, it's very different, but I can see in the hand of Robert E. Howard there. Over all, it's a very well made, even paced film with some very good performances, some great fight scenes and a great hero. I really enjoyed it… Recommended.

My score: 7.2/10

Conan as a Puritan in early 1600's England

[Wuchakk · 4/10 · 21 July 2017]

RELEASED IN 2009 and written/directed by Michael J. Bassett, "Solomon Kane" is Bassett's version of Robert E. Howard's character (Howard was a pulp writer and the creator of Conan and Kull). Kane is a dour English Puritan with cold features shadowed by a slouch hat. Garbed in black, his weaponry consists of a rapier, a dagger and flintlock pistols; his wandering mission is simple: vanquish evil. James Purefoy plays the titular hero and Rachel Hurd-Wood the maiden he must rescue. Max von Sydow appears as his father. Alice Krige is also on hand.

I'm a fan of Howard (and Conan) and have read a few of his Kane stories, but I'm not familiar enough with the character to know how far Bassett deviates from the source material, although Howard purists say it's too far (yeah, like Stone's version of Conan didn't deviate). Whatever the case, the hero in the movie looks and acts like Howard's Solomon Kane and the costuming and locations are exemplary; the cast is good as well. The tone is a mixture of historical grit and comic book cartoonish-ness, the latter mainly in regard to the sorcery elements and villains (Isabel Bassett, James Babson, Samuel Roukin, Jason Flemyng, etc.).

This is a story of redemption as Kane, a murdering, lucre-loving privateer, is transformed after facing evil incarnate and taking a vow of peace. He ultimately becomes a Puritan avenger where the salvation of his soul is contingent upon rescuing a Puritan girl. While the plot is good, the mounting unbiblical gobbledygook is convoluted, eye-rolling and unnecessary.

I thought I'd love this film and it IS great to look at and has a quality score. You can't beat the grim tone, the awe-inspiring locations and the excellent costuming and post-Medieval sets. Moreover Purefoy is perfect as the mysterious protagonist. Unfortunately, it's all for naught as the storytelling is unabsorbing and the characters are dull, except for maybe Kane. It's also listless and predictable. In other words, Bassett got everything right EXCEPT the script. What a shame and a waste. For comparison, imagine the 2011 version of "Conan the Barbarian," but a few notches LESS interesting and you'd have a good idea of "Solomon Kane." Still, it LOOKS awesome.

THE MOVIE RUNS 104 minutes and was shot in the Czech Republic and England.

GRADE: C-

Entertaining dark fantasy based on the works of Robert E. Howard

[jaguiar313 · 7/10 · 25 August 2012]

Solomon Kane is a 16th century fantasy adventure based on the works of Conan creator, Robert E. Howard. It is the story of bloodthirsty mercenary Captain Solomon Kane (a perfectly cast James Purefoy) who learns during an encounter with a demon that his soul is damned and the devil himself wishes to claim it. Seeking redemption and God's forgiveness, Kane vows to never again shed the blood of another. But when the forces of the evil sorcerer, Malachi (Jason Flemyng) murder a kind family that took Kane in and kidnap their daughter, Kane picks up his sword and pistols and vows to bathe his path to hell with the blood of Malachi and his followers. Writer/director Michael J. Bassett knows to take his subject matter seriously, so we do and to keep the tone dark yet injecting just enough melodrama so that it's entertaining. He paces the film well but, doesn't go too fast and he has a really good visual style and knows how to frame a shot. Bassett gets really good performances out of his cast including leading man Purefoy who is great as the tortured soul/hero and small roles from veterans Alice Krige, Pete Postlethwaite and the great Max Von Sydow. The production value is high and the film looks sumptuous, the score by Klaus Bedelt is strong and atmospheric, there is some decent but not great CGI but, the rest of the FX are fine. The climactic battle with Malachi and a Balrog-ish demon could have been a bit longer but, otherwise Solomon Kane is a very entertaining and atmospheric dark fantasy adventure that should keep fans of fantasy and sword and sorcery in their seats and happily occupied.

Cool, a start to horror movies I guess

[dracolexa · 6/10 · 6 November 2021]

It wasn't the best, but I think it's still good. It may have a terrible storyline, but hey, it's an action horror. The storyline really isn't too bad, but I'm just not a big fan of it in general, I just don't like the plot too much.