Solomon Kane (2009) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
117 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Solid, old fashioned, sword and sorcery flick
StevinTasker23 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.
126 out of 154 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A good dark fantasy film.
vorec200121 February 2010
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.
142 out of 190 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It could have been so much more
Fluke_Skywalker24 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.
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Excellent dark adventure
fung023 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.
85 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Soloman Kan was pretty good, its a shame it didn't get as much Advertising as some other Action films get.
foxycritic24 February 2010
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.
133 out of 185 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Gripping Yarn
davidgduncan23 May 2010
I liked it. A film very much in the vein of The Mummy series, but with a more adult and dark side. I found the film full of atmosphere and it drew me in despite the shallow story line, which is to be expected given that it's a hero driven action flick. I thought that the effects, make-up, music, acting, directing, really the whole thing was very solid and it's not just another low budget flick as other reviewers have stated. I would welcome a sequel to this movie, although that might be stretching the storyline a tad too much. Sure, not the masterpiece of the Lord of the Rings but certainly a good hack n slash medieval romp that'll keep you entertained for the duration.
59 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Deserves much higher recognition, superb.
jehefinner-290-98433612 February 2012
As an avid reader of Gothic fantasy I am not easily pleased when it comes to big screen versions of these kinds of stories. After so many disappointments in the past when stories falter or special effects either take over the screen or are shoddy and laughable I alway feel as apprehensive as I do interested when I start watching a film like this.

However, I can honestly say that this film is one of the best I have ever seen. I wish I'd seen in it a cinema, but hadn't heard of it. As soon as the final credits rolled I wanted to watch it all over again, and instantly went online and bought the DVD, something I rarely do.

Everything about this film blew me away, from the atmosphere of gritty cold despair, the incredible (British!!!) cast, to the imagery and beauty of some of the scenes. I could wax lyrical about so many parts of this film that I'd basically be commenting on virtually every scene. I don't know where I'd start, and once I did, I wouldn't be able to stop.

I can't believe it's not been released in the US yet, and I sincerely hope it will be re-released in cinemas here in the UK sometime in the near future, as I would love to see it on a big screen.

Fantastic. Just utterly made of every kind of Win imaginable.
46 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
solid film.
beerwine90011 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
72 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good, gritty sword & sorcery
lothd31 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.
73 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Given the circumstances, it was a good movie
siderite12 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.
49 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What a surprise
prps23 June 2010
After reading the reviews here I decided to see it. I must say it was wrong of me to wait until now (Has been out for some time now). Definitely a surprise ! Although I did not know the story, and for that matter the actors, it was refreshingly well done. The effects could be better but in this case it did not bother me at all. Soundtrack was well done and the actors did perform above what is expected of such a "budget" production. Basically you should see it as it is one of those movies which surprise you by doing exactly what a movie should do ... Entertain you. Hopefully we will not see a sequel as this story ends well (emphasis on ends). (underwold X Y Z anyone ....) Great movie, loved it
28 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Laughable script met with on-par action.
im_goode15 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.
29 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Reminded me of the sword and sorcery videos of the 80's
kurgan_uk24 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.
21 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disrespect and confusion over authenticity
NanoFrog27 August 2010
Very poor, shameless exploitation of the work of Robert E. Howard who must be spinning in his grave. The author of this original story was such a gifted story teller. His Solomon Kane bears zero resemblance to this Hollywood film. Like the terrible films made about Conan, this simplistic farce bears no resemblance to the author's great story telling. people who give this film a positive review are clearly not familiar with the plots, style and characterizations built by Robert E. Howard. This is too bad. I was so excited initially to see this film. As a boy Robert E. Howard's stories were a vital part of my life. Kane was one his more obscure characters, so I was hopeful. However, this film does not honor a single line, moment or idea of the original stories. They have just stolen his name and wardrobe and made a film that makes no sense at all to me. I was unable to finish watching this film.
18 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dark, moody, epic sword n fantasy film!
doomas1021 February 2010
Before i write my sentences with a structure of a ten year old, i need to say one thing. This film was one of the most anticipated ones ever for me! I love Solomon Kane and of course its creator Robert E. Howard (he created Conan the barbarian as well. Oh yeah!). Now why i was so much into Solomon Kane? Because the trailer looked super promising and James Purefoy utterly convincing as the ultimate antihero. Trailer wise, i saw some crazy stuff. Demons, zombies, sword fights,sorcerers and more. The Result? The movie is just awesome! I was absorbed into huge amounts of awesomeness that this film offers from screen-shot 1! The story is simple and contains a great premise.

The look of the film is just outstanding! When you have a film set in medieval times you need to make it look real. The environment and the surroundings are like a second character. They have to look real. Well in this part the sets (indoor or outdoor) are just amazing. Employing the help from the Czech artist Jan Cilecek, the production design especially when it comes to the interior castle scenes, is just stunning and creepy. The throne room of Malachi or the mirror corridor sequence embrace the screen and show off their vivid detail. The colors, the photography, everything looks marvelous! Same applies for the costumes and make up. I believe Basset put a great amount of detail in the look of the film. It looks so Medieval! Fans of this sub-genre 'sword and sorcery' will not be disappointed. Every possible scene that you have thought, imagined or dreamed for this type of film is here. Hanged people on trees among mist in the background? Check. Skulls on the walls? Check. Snowy forests? check! Dark castles at the top of a hill? Check! This is the wet dream of every proper fan.

Congratulations to the creature design and effects team. I have to admit that in a world filled with eye popping effects, they managed to create some really nasty ones. Honestly, when the first demon arrives, i had my jaw dropped on the floor. Not because it is something unique or original but it is how it is being presented. His voice, his clothing, generally his outlook is taken from our worst nightmares. Did i mention that he/she? has a FLAMING SWORD? Besides this dude, there is variety of stuff in the film. Witches, zombies, priests, sorcerers, a weird masked dude with a big sword who "infects" people with his malice, turning them into slaves and many more. These are ideas well executed as well as being brilliant!

This is not a kids film as there is an enormous degree of violence and limp chopping. Decapitations, stabbings, flying limps and many more are present. Solomon's fighting style is truly unique and far away from the choreographic boredom of Hollywood. Michael J. Basset (the director of the creepy "Deathwatch" and the ace " Wilderness") made an adult fantasy film. On the other hand, the movie is entirely supported by Purefoy who fits the role perfectly. His eyes express his sadness, anger and his continuous effort for redemption. He is just superb and a likable antihero which you can related to. He leads a great cast which includes the names of Max Von Sydow, Jason Flemming, Pete Postlethwaite and Mackenzie Crook among others.

How about the story? Well we've seen it so many times however, it was written way back in 1928! Nevertheless, i think the concept of a guy who tries to redeem his soul is very interesting and intriguing especially if it is set in medieval England. I enjoyed his back story and i cared about his drama. The action doesn't start until the second half of the film (although there is a terrific intro) since before that we are following a hermit Kane wondering around and meeting with the rest of the cast. After a very unhappy incident Kane kicks ass as he used to do. Just for the final third of the film- the confrontation with the sorcerer is just cool-it is worth your money. Period. And did i mention that there is no side kick or funny lines? Thank god.

Besides all the enthusiasm written above i have to admit that the film feels kinda short. If it was two hours (or more) i would have been more pleased than i already was. The character Malachi was doing more of a cameo rather than being an antagonist who makes our (anti) hero's life miserable through the whole film. I would have liked a complete face off between Kane and Malachi as well. Sword vs sorcery! In addition, i thought that certain intriguing characters had no purpose or at least there were underdeveloped thus they were more "satelites" rather than something really important in the plot.

Final thoughts: the action is ace, bloody and well orchestrated, the sets and landscapes amazing, the lead actor perfect, the supporting cast solid and the effects(not many thank god!) serve the story. Special plus to the creatures design team! One of my favorite movies of all time! However, more character development and some answers for certain "satelite" personalities and their purpose would be ace but we can not have it all can we? All i can say is this: i left the theater with a smile and faith for the genre!

Have a 10/10

Viva Michael J Basset, Viva James Purefoy!

P.S the villains are ace!
19 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Needed to zip along a bit more.....
area013 March 2010
I was looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point.

I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....

The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.

You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!

On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.

I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?

Or....... Go really "Art-House" with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.

Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for it?
24 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
10 Reasons why you should see "Solomon Kane"
cvpuzinas3 September 2012
1. Solomon Kane is one of R.E. Howard's strongest character creations alongside Conan the Barbarian, and has gone down in fantasy/genre history as the more complex, darker, anti-hero. This film introduces you to the world of Solomon Kane and his struggles to combat the ultimate supernatural power, the Devil.

2. His adventures are better known than his origins in the tales (they first appeared in the pulp publication, Weird Tales) but this film introduces Solomon Kane, the man. Director/screenwriter Michael J. Bassett has written and created a fine introduction and the viewer journeys along with Kane as he fights for his soul and redemption.

3. He wears black clothing. Lots of it. And a black pilgrim-style hat. And as you know, the coolest heroes usually do wear black.

4. It stars the very talented yet under-rated James Purefoy (Rome, Resident Evil, the Philanthropist) as Kane. He embodies S.K. completely as a character but lends a humane aspect to the man in black. Catch him here and hope that he returns for a sequel one day.

5. Great supporting actors appear in it as well: Rachel Hurd-Wood, the late, great Pete Postlethwaite and Jason Flemyng. Solid cast. And numerous very creepy demons - great makeup design in this film.

6. A lot of thought and research went into re-creating the 16th century dark fantasy world the story takes place in and kudos to the production designer, cinematographer etc.. who've succeeded. It's powerful and stunning. Dark, moody, stormy, downright evil at times and wet, wet, wet - the perfect arena for good vs. evil.

7. It's one of the better Sword & Sorcery films out there - and there aren't many overall.

8. There's been talk of a sequel for year's and this film sets up Kane's life and yearning for adventure nicely. He's defined here character wise and the film leaves you wanting to see him take on even more villains and forces just to see him yield his sword once more - oh yeah, he's super skilled with that and his omnipresent pistols.

9. Because it was probably my favourite film of 2009 when I saw it the first time and the appeal still hasn't worn off - it rings of good old fashioned movie making magic - a hero albeit a dark one (but hey Batman's dark so that's not a bad camp to be in), great sets/costumes, sword fighting and just the right amount of terror and adventure combined.

10. Because maybe you went to see Conan when it came out and you wanted more of Howard's characters and this type of dark fantasy - here's your chance, what are you waiting for?
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
davef-292-47965714 February 2012
Full marks to this film, in spite of my being initially unconnected with the character we're introduced to in the opening scene and being slightly disappointed (on first viewing) with the conclusion. It is the middle of this film that is its strongest section, once the story moves on, where it becomes a superbly atmospheric adventure story with a fine performance from James Purefoy as the eponymous anti-hero and Pete Postlethwaite as the man who takes him in. Whilst the stark locations and incessant rain set a dour mood, the excellently choreographed fight scenes are anything but.

However, the real backbone to this film lies in the contrast between the commanding, arrogant Solomon Kane of the opening scene and the tortured, penitent figure we see during the next few scenes, before the vengeful anti-hero he is forced to become.

Some scenes are just so damned cool you will want to watch and re-watch them. One of the best films I've seen in ages.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bloody battles in a sinister atmosphere and loads of predictable stereotypes
kluseba3 June 2012
"Solomon Kane" is your usual predictable fantasy movie filled with a whole lot of stereotypes.

Just take a look on the characters. You have the lonesome warrior and lost son that has to become a hero. You have his severe old father that has to face the demons of his past. You also have the arrogant bad brother who wants to possess everything. You have the helpless and innocent young maid that is attacked by evil forces. You have the evil double faced magician that brings destruction over those who trust him. I think you understand what I'm pointing at. The characters completely lack of depth, diversity or originality. I don't feel any connection to any of these superficial characters that are also randomly introduced.

It's the same thing for the story. The whole thing feels as if it was rather adapted from a simple computer game than from a book series. The whole thing is quite simple. An evil captain tries to isolate and forget about his bloody past in a monastery. The Church though asks him to leave and on his way across England, he faces war and pain. He wants to change and become a peaceful wanderer and luck seems to be with him when he meets a family that wants to emigrate towards the New World. He also has an eye for the beautiful, innocent and quite young daughter but the soft romance is interrupted by evil hordes of possessed warriors that slay most of the family and kidnap the charming young woman. Our hero needs to leave the peaceful way and has to fulfil the family's last wish, find the daughter and save the whole country and his very own soul at the same time. You can easily imagine the rest. Anybody who's a little bit into fantasy literature or movies could have written this kind of story in a few hours only. Right from the beginning on you have a clear idea how this movie might end and it really came exactly as I thought it would be.

The rest of this flick is filled with some occult scenes featuring demons, warriors and witches, a lot of rainy days and dark catacombs and a big bunch of bloody battles. There is a lot of action, a lot of slaying and the movie has a quite fast pace but the whole thing gets quite redundant after a while.

The camera work and the special effects are of a rather mediocre quality and would have fit to an entertaining computer game but not such an expensive production. On the other side, the movie develops a good sinister atmosphere by portraying desolate rainy landscapes, destroyed villages, dirty and ugly warriors, crying women and children and a somewhat cynical, desperate but still emotional hero.

The acting is in fact not as bad as one might think. It's not excellent as well but rather solid and might please to the main audience of this kind of film.

On the positive site I might cite the flashbacks of the main character that portray his youth and how he has become what he is. the clash between past and present is an interesting point of the film but this idea could have been developed a little bit more. I would have liked to know how Soloman Kane became a captain. A few more informations on his ideals would have been helpful to develop this character that ultimately is very basic and not as colourful as it could have been.

I must also admit that the movie has a rather good pace and never gets completely boring. At least, there are no exaggerated special effects or pseudo intellectual dialogues. The makers don't pretend to create something original and honestly focus on epic battles and a few entertaining fantasy elements. This simplicity makes this flick rather sympathetic from my point of view.

In the end, there are still enough reasons that save this movie from being completely irrelevant. It's a good watch for those who like dark and gore fantasy movies of a traditional style. Anybody who's looking for a masterpiece of the genre or even something intellectual should definitely look elsewhere.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A successful fantasy film
tompotter8328 October 2011
I absolutely loved Solomon Kane. Well done Mr Bassett! For me, fantasy films have always been slightly disappointing. Great concepts but never executed entirely successfully. Being the kind of person who is drawn to the genre, I tried very hard to enjoy films like Conan the Barbarian, Willow and Highlander. These aren't bad films and have some great parts, but they are not wholly successful. Solomon Kane, on the other hand, is a joy from start to finish.

A few of the things I liked were the dark tone, the mix of grubby history and high fantasy, the stellar cinematography, the sword fight choreography, James Purefoy's West Country accent, Mackenzie Crook's cursed congregation. Each element just came together to create a perfect whole. I don't think I've had so much fun watching an action film since seeing Predator for the first time as a youngster.

I'm gutted that we may not see a sequel to this magnificent film. I think James Purefoy was born to play this role and its a crime that he won't get another chance to. There's something wrong in a film industry that funds endless sequels to pretty awful films like Resident Evil and we can't get a sequel to a genuinely great film like this! Well, one Solomon Kane is better than none. I'm off to find copies of Deathwatch and Wilderness now!
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Much better than clash of the Hollywood blockbusters
dejan837827 August 2010
A gripping adventure, far better than the Hollywood blockbusters, especially the soulless and boring Clash of the titans. I just love it; it's great, but with flaws. However the good stuff is so good that you forgive and forget the few bad.

The good stuff is a great adventure with surprises, bloody, raw, cruel, unpolished, bleak, scary, inventive villains... The bad and what should have been added is that the director should have been braver and make it longer and epic giving a more time on Kane's connection with His father and brother which would make a more emotional and exciting story, and definitely there should have been more of Malachi.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Visually Stunning Well Crafted Experience"
kimi_layercake11 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
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The best cinematic interpretation of a REH character thus far.
punisher515028 August 2011
Solomon Kane ranks as one of the best dark fantasy movies available as well. For those not familiar with the character, watch this movie. You would never guess this was made on a relatively low budget. It has the look and fell of a summer blockbuster. Is is very well acted by ALL of the cast. James Purfoy looks like Solomon Kane from the comics and books. You could feel the weight he carried on his shoulders throughout the film. Although this isn't a straight adaption of the Solomon Kane stories of REH (none of the movies based on his characters have been), it definitely captures the spirit of those stories. This movie is a must see for those who love the fantasy genre!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Real Disappointment
calum_mac2 March 2010
As a big fan of most modern fantasy movies, I was really looking forward to this. I was not familiar with the character, although after hearing some general stories about the style of the comic and good reviews of the movie, I thought I was in for a real treat...

From the moment that the lead character started to talk in his forced husky voice, I could tell straight away that I was not going to enjoy this movie. I found the story weak and predictable, the acting poor, the effects were very good for a small budget film, but did nothing for the overall plot.

Maybe as a fan of the Comics you may get something more from this, otherwise I would suggest that you skip it and not waste you cinema fare on this boring adventure.
19 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ladies and Gentlemen...The Epic Fantasy Adventure we've all been waiting for since Peter Jackson's masterful 'The Lord of the Rings' ended in 2003.
mp32610 November 2011
Every once in a while, a film like 'Solomon Kane' comes along. A film that surprises. A film that truly entertains. A film that leaves you craving more. A film you have to watch again almost immediately. Not since 2003 has a film of this genre managed to accomplish just that. I am of course speaking of Peter Jackson's pièce de la résistance – 'The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.' From then until now we've had the following attempts to mimic and reproduce a similar following: 'King Arthur?' - No. 'The Last Legion?' - No way. 'Clash of the Titans?' - Hmm...No. 'Van Helsing?' - ...Nope. 'The Mummy 3?' - ...No comment. But after this long and painful 7 year span, I am pleased to say that I have found such a film to which the answer is a definitive - 'Yes.' Although not on quite as big a scale, the relatively young British director, Michael J. Bassett, has managed to create certainly as epic a character piece with Robert E. Howard's (that's right – the same author who created 'Conan') 'Solomon Kane' on half the budget as that of Jackson's 'LOTR.' James Purefoy, now seemingly a potential leading man for every sword n' sorcery epic (see 'Ironclad') is perfectly cast as the lone swordsman on the path to redemption from past atrocities, giving Solomon Kane a rough, gritty, dangerous intensity reminiscent of Clint Eastwood but at the same time, a very human quality. And no irritating sidekicks. This is all about Kane. What with this and 'Ironclad,' 2 successes within the space of a year, one could argue that Purefoy is certainly making up for his loses as 007 in 'Casino Royale' and V in 'V for Vendetta' over the past few years. It helps of course that your supporting cast consists of seasoned actors Max Von Sydow (Minority Report), Pete Postlethwaite (The Lost World: Jurassic Park), Jason Flemying (Ironclad) and Alice Krige (The Sorcerer's Apprentice), a suitably talented bunch for Purefoy to play off.

This is definitely the role that Purefoy has been waiting for and with Bassett's help to emit his seemingly limitless talent, he's proved himself as a first class A-Lister. Not only does Purefoy's fantastic performance put the above films to shame but the fight choreography is so well cut, so inventive that just the one climatic fight sequence between Solomon (Purefoy doing all his own stunts) and a man who has been set on fire is better than all of the above films put together entirely and is certain to leave you gasping for breath. Klaus Badelt's score is riveting and really elevates Bassett's well realised, darkly portrayed scenes to the dramatic level necessary to make 'Solomon Kane' the surprise hit it's now deservedly become. According to Bassett, there are talks for two more sequels to take place in order to satisfy fans' requests for a trilogy. Roll on.

Verdict: A perfectly executed fantasy epic with enough dramatic depth, sword fights, damsels in distress, witchcraft n' sorcery to keep you going until Peter Jackson brings us 'The Hobbit.' See it.

Review by MARC PAYNE
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed