Solomon Kane

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.

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.

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.

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 because the historical references - the Dutch costume of Solomon Kane , first - are good points for a seductive story about a mission and about noble duty.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

'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.