RELEASED IN 2009 and written/directed by Michael J. Bassett, "Solomon Kane" is Bassett's version of Robert E. Howard's character (Howard was a pulp writer and the creator of Conan and Kull). Kane is a dour English Puritan with cold features shadowed by a slouch hat. Garbed in black, his weaponry consists of a rapier, a dagger and flintlock pistols; his wandering mission is simple: vanquish evil. James Purefoy plays the titular hero and Rachel Hurd-Wood the maiden he must rescue. Max von Sydow appears as his father. Alice Krige is also on hand.
I'm a fan of Howard (and Conan) and have read a few of his Kane stories, but I'm not familiar enough with the character to know how far Bassett deviates from the source material, although Howard purists say it's too far (yeah, like Stone's version of Conan didn't deviate). Whatever the case, the hero in the movie looks and acts like Howard's Solomon Kane and the costuming and locations are exemplary; the cast is good as well. The tone is a mixture of historical grit and comic book cartoonish-ness, the latter mainly in regard to the sorcery elements and villains (Isabel Bassett, James Babson, Samuel Roukin, Jason Flemyng, etc.).
This is a story of redemption as Kane, a murdering, lucre-loving privateer, is transformed after facing evil incarnate and taking a vow of peace. He ultimately becomes a Puritan avenger where the salvation of his soul is contingent upon rescuing a Puritan girl. While the plot is good, the mounting unbiblical gobbledygook is convoluted, eye-rolling and unnecessary.
I thought I'd love this film and it IS great to look at and has a quality score. You can't beat the grim tone, the awe-inspiring locations and the excellent costuming and post-Medieval sets. Moreover Purefoy is perfect as the mysterious protagonist. Unfortunately, it's all for naught as the storytelling is unabsorbing and the characters are dull, except for maybe Kane. It's also listless and predictable. In other words, Bassett got everything right EXCEPT the script. What a shame and a waste. For comparison, imagine the 2011 version of "Conan the Barbarian," but a few notches LESS interesting and you'd have a good idea of "Solomon Kane." Still, it LOOKS awesome.
THE MOVIE RUNS 104 minutes and was shot in the Czech Republic and England.
GRADE: C-
I'm a fan of Howard (and Conan) and have read a few of his Kane stories, but I'm not familiar enough with the character to know how far Bassett deviates from the source material, although Howard purists say it's too far (yeah, like Stone's version of Conan didn't deviate). Whatever the case, the hero in the movie looks and acts like Howard's Solomon Kane and the costuming and locations are exemplary; the cast is good as well. The tone is a mixture of historical grit and comic book cartoonish-ness, the latter mainly in regard to the sorcery elements and villains (Isabel Bassett, James Babson, Samuel Roukin, Jason Flemyng, etc.).
This is a story of redemption as Kane, a murdering, lucre-loving privateer, is transformed after facing evil incarnate and taking a vow of peace. He ultimately becomes a Puritan avenger where the salvation of his soul is contingent upon rescuing a Puritan girl. While the plot is good, the mounting unbiblical gobbledygook is convoluted, eye-rolling and unnecessary.
I thought I'd love this film and it IS great to look at and has a quality score. You can't beat the grim tone, the awe-inspiring locations and the excellent costuming and post-Medieval sets. Moreover Purefoy is perfect as the mysterious protagonist. Unfortunately, it's all for naught as the storytelling is unabsorbing and the characters are dull, except for maybe Kane. It's also listless and predictable. In other words, Bassett got everything right EXCEPT the script. What a shame and a waste. For comparison, imagine the 2011 version of "Conan the Barbarian," but a few notches LESS interesting and you'd have a good idea of "Solomon Kane." Still, it LOOKS awesome.
THE MOVIE RUNS 104 minutes and was shot in the Czech Republic and England.
GRADE: C-