Solomon Kane

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. (07/12/2010)

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 (06/27/2010)

An honest medieval bloodbath without any unnecessary special effects (except for the impressive ending), which relies on rain, mud, and blood, and the result is an uncompromising impact, perhaps marred by the slightly predictable plot. However, this time it doesn't matter so much because the main trump card of Bassett's film is James Purefoy. Anyone who has ever watched Rome knows that he is a charismatic bastard, and even here he lives up to his reputation. It is a pleasure to watch a protagonist who, even when uttering pathetic phrases, does not look ridiculous but instead makes the viewer's signal system shiver with a pleasant chill. Not to mention the moments when he picks up a sword (or better yet, two). Thumbs up. PS: (05/24/2010)

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%] (06/17/2010)

That Solomon will not reach Conan's qualities is to be expected, but I didn’t think he it would be deep in the shadow of the Russian Wolfhound. If it wasn't for the impressive chilly atmosphere, it wouldn't even be enough for a solid average. (06/20/2010)

Klaus Badelt's soundtrack runs full throttle and Czech realities eagerly try to disguise themselves as a dark medieval period, but that's about all the praise this action-packed film will receive from me. Solomon Kane tells a cheap fairytale instead of an ambitious fantasy. It could have worked in book form, but the film is surprisingly annoyingly transparent in its execution. (01/07/2011)

"Solomon Kane" is a classic by Robert E. Howard. His stories were published from 1928 in the magazine Weird Tales. In addition to this film, there have also been a number of comic book adaptations (Marvel, Dark Horse). Personally, I am not particularly drawn to fantasy adventures from the late 16th and early 17th centuries, whose main hero is a puritan, but so be it. In the context of genre tradition, it has value and the film itself is not that bad. Alongside Conan the Barbarian, Kull the Conqueror (and Red Sonja), Solomon Kane also does his author proud. (07/29/2023)

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. (05/22/2010)

Solomon Kane could easily have been played by Hugh Jackman, but the resemblance to Purefoy is simply incredible, so it wouldn't change anything extra. The final settlement is very good, but unfortunately I was quite bored before, although Vašut tried to distract me with his expressions. However, it's a pity about those two unrealized sequels..6/10 (07/18/2017)

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. (11/13/2010)

If it weren't for the fact that the (very good) Klaus Badelt is unfortunately not the legendary Basil Poledouris, Solomon Kane would be comparable in all respects to Conan the Barbarian. I don't know about anyone else, but I just saw a stunningly honest classic fantasy that had an incredibly impressive, dirty medieval atmosphere (skillful direction, beautiful and terrifying cinematography, the aforementioned music), a main Hero with a capital H, and quite a gritty and good (and an almost fairy tale) story of repentance. I had a very good time and I dare say I will never forget many of the scenes (the opening, the church, the crucifixion, etc.). So I give it a strong four stars (which under normal circumstances - i.e., without Poledouris - Conan would probably get) and I'm happy as hell to round it up.__P.S. Only the final digital crap could have been a little less reminiscent of the Balrog. (04/02/2011)

By the time I finished watching Solomon Kane, I was practically convinced that the director Basset must be the same guy who made Frontier(s). Exactly the right set of effectively (and well) composed shots that ultimately don't hold together very well. Most of the scenes are at least a minute longer than they should be and the fights, for example, look pretty amateurish. There was also a fair amount of digital effects sporadically, but I forgive the heavily criticized final monster because it was really cute in its Heroes of Might and Magic style. Likewise the creatures in the mirrors at the beginning (although it was a mega-useless scene). I wrestled with the backdrops that were just backdrops, but I think the main character was what pissed me off the most. I mean, the introduction to the character at the beginning was awesome, and I loved the cynical guy. Why he then had to turn into a whiny sock puppet during the course of the film, who I wanted to slap from time to time and yell at him to man up and go do something, is a mystery to me, because I don't imagine the target audience wanted that. But on the plus side: it's finally a fantasy, a FANTASY! Not a medieval fantasy with fantasy elements, an ancient loosely interpreted legend, or a comic book adaptation – it's fantasy. All the witches, spells, monsters, and the like are not dispensed with God knows what kind of wit, and I enjoyed it. In its light artlessness it made me feel like it was really being made by fans and not producers, and I loved the spectacular props like the bloody throne, the inquisitor masks, and Jason Flemyng as the heavily styled bad guy. It's fun and I'm glad they make movies like this, but if only Snyder.... (09/29/2011)

The film pleasantly surprised me when I watched it again today. My original rating was strongly influenced by the fact that the Puritan in the film did not correspond to the way I knew him from R. E. Howard's stories. Today, I gave up on such comparisons, and I could enjoy a fast-paced fantasy film with fairy-tale motifs and brutal bloodshed. By no means was I bored, James Purefoy again reminded me more of a pervert than a religious fanatic /it's just his face, I guess:-)/ and I also enjoyed Jason Flemyng’s performance (he hasn't disappointed me once). As a whole, it deserves the fourth star. (11/09/2020)