Solomon Kane (2009) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
141 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.
105 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
117 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
70 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
52 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
119 out of 167 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Witchfinder General: The Middle-Earth Years
MilesPieri16 May 2009
Warning: 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.
74 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
34 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The film Van Helsing should have been
chrismsawin12 May 2010
Ever wonder what it would be like if Van Helsing didn't suck? To take that idea a bit further, ever wonder what it would be like if the films Van Helsing and Constantine were able to mate and its offspring was a film that was actually pretty awesome? In a nutshell, that's what you get with Solomon Kane. On the surface, Solomon Kane is very similar to Van Helsing. It has the same look and atmosphere of Van Helsing without all the monster hunting. In place of the monsters, we get demons. That's where the Constantine influence comes in. Solomon Kane's religious undertones, use of mirrors, and conclusion are all very reminiscent of Constantine.

Certain elements of the film may not be as absorbing as others. The CGI in the film seemed to fluctuate between being pretty good to below par. The crucifixion scene didn't really work either. Why Kane did what he did in that scene makes sense, but his actions and what he does immediately after that is pretty hard to swallow.

Solomon Kane isn't without its flaws, but is basically the gory, more adult, and definitive version of what Van Helsing should have been. With the amount of decapitated heads that are rolling around, every action scene littered with splattered blood, and its darker twists on religious views, Solomon Kane delivers a blood-soaked cinematic delight.
82 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
solid film.
Ewok Polevaulter11 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
64 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Grown up fantasy with a heart of darkness
OfficerGordon18 May 2009
Warning: 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.
50 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
64 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Sword & Sorcery Film
Crossplain Pilgrim18 October 2009
Warning: 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.
41 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
46 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Solomon Kane is More than An Action Adventure
scteel222 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers

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.
45 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is like Star Wars and Dark Knight set in the 17th Century....
Jamesbond197417 September 2009
Warning: 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.
34 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Beginning good but the movies looses the plot
ghasl18 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
21 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Genre fan or not, you need to see this movie.
weaselguy414 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
OK, let me get two thing out of the way, first, I love this movie, if that makes me biased towards it then so be it, and second, I don't think I have put any spoilers in here, but do make vague ref to aspects of the movie, hopefully without giving anything away hence the spoiler warning.

But I'd like to think that my love of this movie is down to the fact that is so near to flawless as any movie adaptation of a literary work I've ever seen (and quite frankly, I've seen a lot).

I wont give details about the plot for two reasons, 1)plenty of other reviewers have already done that and 2)whats the fun in seeing a movie if you know whats gonna happen? All I want to do is give you that gentle nudge to go see this flick at your local cinema, and I promise you wont leave disappointed. If you like action movies, this is for you. If you like sword and sorcery movies, this is for you. If you generally just like really well made movies that will draw you into an engaging, and at times, unexpected story, this is for you. If you want specifics about WHY it's so good (and I'll admit there are times where Im one of those 'but whats in it for me' kinda people)the answer is simple. Everything.

The acting is first class all the way, unlike pretty much every other sword and sorcery movie, no one is this flick has opted for a tongue in cheek portrayal. Everyone from the excellent James Purefoy, the always exceptional Pete Postlethwaite and legendary Max Von Sydow all give 110% in this, acting as though this was what they were put on this earth to perform.

You want action? You got it, you will likely not see sword play this good in a movie this side of an Asian epic. If you know about the character of Solomon Kane from the original stories of Robert E. Howard, he is described as a man who doesn't waste a single movement in a fight, and this is so true on screen. Every strike, swing, dodge and thrust is there because it serves to add to Kane's advantage in battle. If your looking for fancy, artistic sword play I suggest you look elsewhere, the fights in Solomon Kane are raw, fierce and realistic (very in some places, but I wont spoil it for you) CGI is kept to a minimum, and that really works in the movies favour, it add's to that raw gritty feel that CGI can sometimes dull out with too many smooth edges. (Other than one major CGI encounter, but again my lips are sealed, needless to say it looks great anyway).

For loyalists to the Howard camp I say this, no it's not based on any of the original stories. But as a fan of the original stories I can tell you that it is a very faithful adaptation of the character and his world, even dropping in at least one nod to the literary fans that I wont spoil for you. Kane on screen is exactly as I pictured him while reading the stories, the voice, the outfit, the movements and attitude.

Without going into plot details all I can add it that the world in general has embraced this movie with the kind of cult devotion rarely seen these days, and now, finally, it looks like the USA will get the chance to see what the rest of the world already knows: Solomon Kane is the definitive adaptation of any of Robert E. Howard's works, it is the peak of most action/fantasy movies, let alone sword and sorcery ones, and with a little more love from the general public, it will be merely the first part of an epic trilogy.

Please, for your own good, go see this movie!
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Dark Story of Redemption in a World Plunging into Darkness and Chaos
Claudio Carvalho18 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
In a time of witchcraft and sorcery when the world was plunging into darkness and chaos, no one stood against evil.

In 1600, in North Africa, Captain Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) is a murderer and greed man that invades a coastal city seeking its hidden treasure. However, his crew is killed by demons and Solomon is trapped in a room with the Devil's Reaper. The evil Solomon learns that the reaper is ready to collect his soul as part of an unknown deal, but he succeeds in escaping from the devil.

Solomon travels to England and finds a sanctuary in a monastery. He renounces violence and gives his fortune to the Church, but after one year, the leader of the monks tells him to leave the hideout. Solomon wanders on the road of a country ruled by the evil Malachi (Jason Flemyng) and plunged into violence and chaos. Sooner three thieves steal his few possessions and beat him up, but Salomon is rescued by a puritan family that is traveling to North America.

When Solomon is healed, the patron William Crowthorn (Pete Postlethwaite) invites him to join his family in their journey. Solomon befriends the Crowthorn family, specially the boy Samuel (Patrick Hurd- Wood) and his teenage sister Meredith (Rachel Hurd-Wood).

When the Crowthorn family is slaughtered by raiders of the evil Malachi (Jason Flemyng) lead by the cruel Overlord (Sam Roukin), the demons abduct Meredith. Salomon tells that his soul will be doomed to hell but swears to William that he will rescue his daughter from Malachi. However, William promises Solomon that he will find redemption if he succeeds in his quest and bring Meredith back to her mother.

A couple of months ago I saw the trailer of "Solomon Kane" and I have been anxiously waiting for the release of this film on DVD. This dark story of redemption shows a full of action adventure, supported by a great story, screenplay and performances associated to excellent special effects and soundtrack. Surprisingly, this film is underrated in IMDb, with only 6.2 User Rating.

There are interesting interviews with James Purefoy and Max von Sydow in the Extras. This is one of the last films of the British actor Pete Postlethwaite, who has recently died.

My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Solomon Kane - O Caçador de Demônios" ("Solomon Kane – The Demons Hunter")
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Something feels wrong
wuhugm28 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
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
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
25 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Cure For Insomnia
chicagopoetry2 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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 . . .
26 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Grim, bleak, and an excellent fantasy adventure.
misbegotten3 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Although I was already aware of Solomon Kane as a pulp character, I confess I've not actually read any of Robert E. Howard's stories about the Puritan adventurer, so I can't comment on how much the movie deviates from the original material, though I do know that the film gives Kane a origin story, which Howard never bothered with. In fact, one of the movie's main weaknesses is that concentrates too much on Solomon's origin, complete with clumsy flashbacks to his childhood that are necessary in regards to the over-arcing plot, but which bring the narrative to a shuddering halt. And revealing that Kane is not only unwittingly linked to the schemes of arch-villain Malachi, but is also indirectly responsible for the evil sorcerer's rise to power in the first place, feels like a stretch too far. The backstory and motives given to the title character also make SOLOMON KANE a tad too similar to a number of other recent pop-culture genre movies: a hero trying to atone for his evil past? See THE SHADOW (1994). Fighting demons in an attempt to save his condemned soul? Check out CONSTANTINE (2005). Max von Sydow even appears in a role mirroring the one he played in JUDGE DREDD (1995), complete with a near-identical death bed confession. The CGI demon that turns up as a final climatic opponent also feels un-necessary, especially as Kane's swordfight with Malachi's masked Vader-like enforcer is an exciting and perfectly acceptable setpiece with which to end the film.

However, these are minor setbacks, for despite being an independent production with - by Hollywood standards - a fairly moderate budget, SOLOMON KANE looks fantastic and is suitably bleak. In KANE's 17th century England, the ground is either frozen solid and covered in snow, or has been transformed into thick mud by the rain that pours down out of a permanently blackened sky onto a landscape littered with torched and abandoned villages, bodies hanging from trees, and churches reduced to rubble. One character laments that this is surely the End of Days, and it's hard to disagree.

James Purefoy gives an accomplished performance in the title role, never over-playing the brooding but instead balancing it wisely by giving Kane the quietly haunted air of a man whose personal demons are all too real. He also supplies some fine steely determination when events force Kane to abandon his vow of non-violence and go riding off to seize Evil by the scruff of the neck. The supporting cast of familiar & reliable character actors all acquit themselves well, with a special mention for doe-eyed actress Rachel Hurd-Wood, who was the best thing about the handsomely-produced but uninvolving DORIAN GRAY (2009), and is equally good here as Meredith Crowthorn, who becomes Kane's redemption. I've read on-line that fans of the original pulp tales were worried that Solomon's Puritan beliefs would be ignored and he'd be given a romantic interest to satisfy modern audiences, but while it's made clear that the teenage Meredith is fascinated with Solomon and harbours a crush towards him, it's taken no further than a nicely underplayed scene where she secretly watches Kane as he washes shirtless by a river.

I currently don't know if SOLOMON KANE is being released into American cinemas, but I think it will struggle to make much impact in the all-important U.S. market. Our American cousins are famously blinkered and inward-looking in regards to movies (witness Hollywood having to remake numerous foreign films for their home audience, Tom Sawyer being crowbarred into the movie version of THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, and the successful capture of a German Enigma machine by the Royal Navy in WWII being credited to American commandos in U571), and SOLOMON KANE is set in England, with an English hero, and a nearly all-British cast. A hard sell, basically. Purefoy even plays Kane with a West Country accent, which will probably confuse the hell out of audiences in the States, who are only used to RADA English or mockney-Cockney. Ironically, it's that very Britishness that sets this movie apart from other recent fantasy efforts. It's the film that Hammer probably would have made in the late Sixties/early Seventies if they'd had access to a multi-million dollar budget and 21st century special effects technology. Except the Hammer version would have included lots of breasts.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
23 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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