Solomon Kane

'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.

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.

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.

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.