Solomon Kane

Total satisfaction. This is what every Howard fantasy movie was supposed to look like. Bassett made a movie on a small budget that can proudly stand side by side with, say, The Lord of the Rings. The story is straightforward, but it pleasantly surprises several times, mainly through how realistic it feels at times (like in the short stories). And James Purefoy? Awesome. I don't think they could have picked a better Solomon Kane. He manages to transform himself from an evil bastard into a more moderate evil bastard who wants to snatch his soul from Satan's clutches. The action scenes, full of blood and mud, are admirable. Just superb. The whole thing is colored by Badelt’s wonderful score. Hopefully one day we'll see a sequel. If you save our child, your soul, too, will be saved. (22/05/2010)

B-movie ambitions are in place. Solomon Kane is not bad, you can see it has a different approach. It doesn’t try to be monumental and over-the-top like Van Helsing, and it is visually attractive and relatively well put together; it even has an interesting plot in the first half. Although the basic storyline is banal, Purefoy and the straightforwardness of the plot make it work. Unfortunately, the film reaches its peak around the halfway mark, with a thrilling and fantastically shot battle scene in a forest. Things go downhill from there with excessive “fantasy elements” that degrade it. The ending, although restrained, is still uninteresting considering the gloomy aesthetic of the film. Overall, it is solid but uneven in the details. (14/11/2010)

Put together Van Helsing's grade-A movie budget with Solomon’s courage to cut little boys’ throats, and everyone is happy. Anyway, although this movie is amusing enough, it comes across as a farce with all its aspects borrowed from other movies. Purefoy’s performance is alright. (13/07/2010)

I’m like how badass and gritty this film is, but in terms of quality it’s average at best. Solomon Kane has pretty much all the clichés of the genre, which I don’t necessarily mind, but unlike other viewers, I don’t think it works well with them, which I do mind – it was very clear how many of the scenes would unfold, already when it shouldn’t have been so. To avoid spoilers, I will explain this with an example that has nothing to do with this film: a twist where the story is only a dream of the protagonist is a cliché. If it doesn’t occur to me that this will be the twist while watching the film, I won’t mind the cliché. But if it is clear after ten minutes, that’s bad. In Solomon Kane, unfortunately, almost everything is clear from the start. On top of that, it’s often too serious for me to take seriously. 5/10 (28/06/2010)

A very sympathetic "dirty fantasy", which falters due to the lousy choreography of the fights (they are disgustingly clumsy and mechanical) and especially to the lack of exaggeration, which was included in Conan the Barbarian, a film similar to Solomon Kane. Solomon Kane is essentially a variation of the tale of the tamed savage, despite the fact that instead of an erotic sparkle the film bears the white sheet of Catholic chastity and somewhat unappealing evocations of God's justice. Fortunately, Purefoy clearly enjoys the depravity, and Max von Sydow's face amounts to an experience in and of itself. By including a quality expedition to Czech meadows and groves, solid music and aspiring effects, Solomon Kane is a welcome alternative to raging fantasy dementia for immature children. Instead of hairy creatures, there is a rotting stench permeating the film, and here and there a head rolls down the stairs. Meat, blood and "proud toughness" are missing from modern fantasy films. However, Solomon Kane could and should have been a bit more agile. [65%] (17/06/2010)