IMDb on iPhone and iPod touch Learn more Learn more Download from the App Store
IMDb > Solomon Kane (2009) > IMDb user reviews

IMDb user comments for
Solomon Kane (2009) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 6 reviews in total 

24 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
Witchfinder General: The Middle-Earth Years, 16 May 2009
7/10
Author: MilesPieri from New York City, NY

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

18 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Grown up fantasy with a heart of darkness, 18 May 2009
8/10
Author: OfficerGordon from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SOLOMON KANE was really not what I expected. It's far, far better than I could have hoped. As it stands, its pretty unique in the sword and sorcery movies simply because it has proper drama, great performances and some nasty intense action along with all the traditional sword fights, magical monsters and running, jumping and chasing. Easy to level the criticism that it re-runs a few Lord of the Rings moments but it's an altogether darker and more evil version because of the grim reality the comes down with every drop of rain – and there's lots of rain – and the human and spiritual element that exists within the story. Made me think of Gladiator in some ways. A doomed soul needing redemption for his past sins? Not exactly what REH envisioned for his iconic Puritan swordsman I'm sure, but I get why writer and director Michael Bassett went down this route and for me and I'm okay with because whatever the story, the character from Howard's pages exists in a way which is surprisingly pure and the world is exactly right. He feels like the Kane I was hoping for and Purefoy manages to make him both grim and taciturn as well as offering us just enough humanity to go along with him for the ride. Some great design with nicely practical and real seeming effects with real blood and gore splatting instead of stylized CG offerings. Monsters are mostly fun and the action in intense – if a little small scale. You don't get armies of thousand of orcs here, it's all quite focused and personal. There's one act of violence near the middle which really changed the feel for me. Unexpected and shocking. It feels like a smaller budget went a very long way and it does look gorgeous. Not a kiddies movie by a long shot and one that, surprisingly, offered me a good deal of material to meditate on about the power of faith and strength of will. Kane really suffers some very heavy duty punishment in this story. I was quite shocked where they went with it and no doubt someone is going to be offended but if Bassett is trying to draw parallels to another iconic figures from history, he's not exactly being subtle. If you're a fan of Robert E Howard's books you can rest easy, if you've never heard of Solomon Kane this is a great introduction and if you just like your fantasy action adventure with a little more heart and a lot more brains, then this is for you too. 8 out of 10.

Was the above comment useful to you?

13 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Solomon Kane is More than An Action Adventure, 22 September 2009
9/10
Author: scteel2 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

**SPOLIERS** **SPOLIERS** **SPOLIERS** **SPOLIERS**

I attended both screenings of Solomon Kane at TIFF. I thought it was outstanding, and I am familiar with the Solomon Kane stories. The cinematography is beautiful, the score is amazing, the performances are fantastic, and the overtones are subtle. James Purefoy's performance is perfect. He's engaging, mysterious, and we want to follow him on his journey. There are some very powerful, intense scenes I felt were quite moving. The film definitely has a dark and somber tone, which is exactly what I wanted from this story. Though fewer then the very positive, the negative reviews are boggling my mind. Everyone has their opinion, I suppose, including me, but I wonder if these people even watched the same movie I did?

We first meet Kane as an evil, greedy man. When he comes face to face with an agent of Satan, however, he narrowly escapes an eternity in hell and renounces his violent and sinful ways. He spends the next year praying for redemption at a monastery, but is forced by the priests to leave, as God has a different plan in store for Kane, albeit they are unsure of what that may be. His passive behavior is tested almost immediately when a gang of thieves rob and beat him viciously. He could easily slice up these thugs in the blink of an eye, but rather, he suffers through quietly and takes their abuse. Kane is found and cared for by a Puritan family, head beautifully by Alice Krige and Pete Postlethwaite, and we just know that horrible things are going to happen to them. When they do, Kane abolishes his new found, non-violent ways in order to save them and their young daughter, Meredith. On his quest to rescue her, Kane is tested over and over until a final, spectacular encounter with evil. Who will finally win the battle for Kane's soul?

I read one review that called Kane's motives selfish. Well, at first, they are. His quest for redemption is driven by his desire not to go to hell. However, that reviewer missed the point. It's when Kane risks going to hell in order to save the family he has grown to love that the true test of his character is revealed. It's the complete opposite of selfish and we're right there rooting for him. We can see he is truly a changed man, worthy of a second chance.

What most impressed me about the film was its physical beauty. The action sequences are realistic and sweeping, as is the landscape, used brilliantly by director Bassett. One shot is particularly breathtaking as Kane plummets to the ground in slow motion from the cross to which he'd been nailed. He looks like a fallen angel, which I suppose, in a way he is. This movie is far more than entertaining fluff and comic book folly. It is a fine achievement in film-making. The director, cast and crew's hard work has truly paid off. I hope everyone will get the chance to see it.

Was the above comment useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
This is like Star Wars and Dark Knight set in the 17th Century...., 17 September 2009
10/10
Author: Jamesbond1974 from Canada

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film just (and I mean like 45 minutes ago), had it's North American Premier at the Toronto International Film Festival. This work was amazing. Set in 17th Century England, it had the feel of the Dark Knight, and Star Wars. Was both dark and gritty, with some laugh out loud parts as well. I was expecting something special, and that is what I got. I came in to the theatre with no information about Solomon Kane, and came out thinking, this early 20th century writer, who created this hero, was way ahead of his time. The Director/Writer (Michael J.Bassett), and the actor playing Solomon Kane (James Purefoy), this man is going to be big in North America. As it is 3:20 am, and the last film on my list, I am going to sign off. This film still has not had a distributor for North America, so some forward thinking company should pick this up. I am voting for James Purefoy to play the next villain in the up coming Batman franchise.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Great Sword & Sorcery Film, 18 October 2009
9/10
Author: Crossplain Pilgrim from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I actually saw "Solomon Kane" at the Alamo Draft House screening in Austin. Terrific film. It was a real thrill to see a high adventure film with strains of horror and fantasy. These days films like this are far and few between. I can't think of a S&S film since the first Conan film that has taken this serious, respectful approach to the genre. It's an origin story that Robert E. Howard never wrote, but in the opinion of this long time REH reader it is Howard's Solomon Kane up there on the screen. Michael J. Bassett's direction is classic in style and many of the shots are beautifully framed. James Purefoy gives a haunting, powerful perfromance as Kane and the supporting cast, which includes Max Von Sydow, is excellent.

The film boasts surprisingly high production values with great sets, costumes, special effects, and many well-staged sword fights. If you consider the Rings films heroic fantasy rather than the more down and dirty Sword and Sorcery genre, this dark and gritty "Solomon Kane" may be the best S&S film ever made.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that "Bloody Disgusting" review. It is so wildly out of sinc with even the other negative reviews as to lack credibility. The positive reviews greatly outnumber the bad ones, by the way. Reading that review, I was thinking to myself, what film did this guy see?

If you like great rousing adventure mixed with some horror and fantasy, do yourself a favor and be your own judge. Go see "Solomon Kane" when it comes to a theater near you.

Was the above comment useful to you?

18 out of 68 people found the following review useful:
What was the point?, 21 September 2009
1/10
Author: csjlong

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it "Solomon Kane" in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.

It's always a bad sign when any superhero/fantasy/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).

With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say "From the creator of Conan" and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new "Conan" movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three "boss levels" at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.

If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.

Was the above comment useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Plot synopsis Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history