User reviews

I found the "Solomon Kane" DVD in the local secondhand DVD store for about $2, so I bought it without knowing what it was about. Truth be told, then it was the cover that convinced me. And now having seen it I can only say wow, I have been missing out on something great.

This is a dark fantasy movie with lots of action, a deep storyline, great characters and good special effects. And I must admit that I was more than pleasantly surprised with this movie.

The story is about Solomon Kane, a man who left his past and heritage behind; a master of war, destruction and terror. His very being is cursed and is bound for Hell, and the Devil is sure to collect. But having changed his wicked ways, Solomon Kane seeks redemption, but can he find it with Hell's forces in hot pursuit?

I found the various aspects of the storyline to be interesting and nicely tied together. Director Michael J. Bassett managed to put together an interesting movie containing a good combination of action, fantasy and adventure.

James Purefoy was phenomenal in the role of Solomon Kane. I can't claim to be familiar with the work of James Purefoy prior to "Solomon Kane", but this movie sure did make a lasting impression.

"Solomon Kane" is an entertaining movie that you should watch if you enjoy the fantasy movie genre.

For me this came out of nowhere. I wasn't expecting much but was absolutely delighted by just how good Solomon Kane was.

Great acting, again a surprise, dazzling special effects and a story that was enjoyable to follow.

Good film fun :)

'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.

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.

Solomon Kane I'll start by pointing out that in no way is SK a copy of Van Helsing, the media and certain unaware people have been comparing the two just due to the characters clothing resemblance like the big hat, well Solomon Kane has been wearing the big hat since he was created in 1928 as stories written in weird tales, where as the 2004 movie van helsing was the first time the character had been portrayed wearing the big hat and being a monster hunter rather than just the killer of count Dracula, if anything the 04 VH movie copied Solomon Kane, anyway moving on to the review:

I was excited about seeing this since i'm a big movie fan and enjoy reading books i was waiting with anticipation for the release, the movie started strong with a impressive fight sequence and good special effects,there was none of the shaky camera action scenes which i find ruin any action movie when you can't see whats happening, everything from the props to visuals made it a very dark and almost creepy atmosphere, although i would class it as a action/fantasy there was elements of horror thrown in too, during the middle of the film the action slows for a while but that just gave me time to appreciate the performance given by James purefoy, other than resident evil i'd never really seen him in anything but i will defend his performance as Solomon Kane since i don't think anyone else could have played the part as confidently as him, supporting cast wise they mostly perform well.

There was a few continuity issues with the fact that Solomon never seemed to run out of single shot pistols and even if he'd thrown one at someone or something he always had both a sword and dagger but along with a few other things i must say that i did enjoy watching this and if you're a fan of the genre then i recommend a watch.

over all i give Solomon Kane 7 out of 10

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.

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.

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.

Solomon Kane is a 16th century fantasy adventure based on the works of Conan creator, Robert E. Howard. It is the story of bloodthirsty mercenary Captain Solomon Kane (a perfectly cast James Purefoy) who learns during an encounter with a demon that his soul is damned and the devil himself wishes to claim it. Seeking redemption and God's forgiveness, Kane vows to never again shed the blood of another. But when the forces of the evil sorcerer, Malachi (Jason Flemyng) murder a kind family that took Kane in and kidnap their daughter, Kane picks up his sword and pistols and vows to bathe his path to hell with the blood of Malachi and his followers. Writer/director Michael J. Bassett knows to take his subject matter seriously, so we do and to keep the tone dark yet injecting just enough melodrama so that it's entertaining. He paces the film well but, doesn't go too fast and he has a really good visual style and knows how to frame a shot. Bassett gets really good performances out of his cast including leading man Purefoy who is great as the tortured soul/hero and small roles from veterans Alice Krige, Pete Postlethwaite and the great Max Von Sydow. The production value is high and the film looks sumptuous, the score by Klaus Bedelt is strong and atmospheric, there is some decent but not great CGI but, the rest of the FX are fine. The climactic battle with Malachi and a Balrog-ish demon could have been a bit longer but, otherwise Solomon Kane is a very entertaining and atmospheric dark fantasy adventure that should keep fans of fantasy and sword and sorcery in their seats and happily occupied.

Back in the mid 80's my brother and i would chuck a couple of pounds together and hire 4 or 5 videos for the weekend. We would get a couple of top rated vids and a couple of cheap vids. Invariably the cheap vids were straight to video sword and sorcery efforts that all seemed to use the same studio sets and all had the same basic plots, Hero strives through adversity to save young lady from clutches of power hungry wizard.

Solomon Caine,despite being from a great storyteller, reminded me of those cheap videos. Same basic plot, just has better special effects. Watch it if there is nothing else you would prefer to watch, but for £6 you're not going to get your moneys worth.

This is very much a typical low budget "Good vs. Evil" story. If you can swallow the poor acting and boring script it has some neat effects and action. It's not half bad for a Saturday afternoon viewing. (5/10 = It's exactly half bad, but whatever)

You can predict most every scene and there's no real surprises, the whole movie takes itself way too seriously. The script is cliché at best, and the acting is quite poor all around featuring no good performances. Along with that there are some mildly entertaining monsters, and some decent swordplay.

If you have kids that were anything like I was when I was growing up, I'm sure they'll enjoy it (be warned it is a bit gory). Or if you're just a big fan of campy sword and sorcery movies, it might be worth a rental. But to anyone else, I'd recommend watching another movie.

I must admit, I wasn't expecting much from this movie. In the recent years there were so many different flops in the fantasy movies area, that even as a fan I started to dislike the genre, and ever since Lord of the Rings I saw maybe 2 movies from this genre that I liked. In the last two month I saw two excellent movies that restored faith in this genre. One was Dante's inferno - a truly epic animation, and the other one is Solomon Kane. I saw a review that was titled - "what Van Helsing was suppose to be". I absolutely agree with it. The pure action, mixed together with non intrusive religious high moral values - is a blend which might influence our money driven morals. This movie actually proves that movie does not have to have Grade A stars, which don't necessarily suit the movie, but rather good acting cast that works all together. Now for more specifics: Story: Simple and done to death - yet it still works 6/10 Star (James Purefoy): Good actor. Loved him in Rome. Here he is good, but I'd prefer someone with more muscle, and more brutality. 7/10 Action: Simply great.I want more 9/10. General cast: It's good, well balanced, and functions well together. 7/10

This one worth it.No regrets.

"Solomon Kane" is a movie set in the 17th century at a time when Evil was wide-spread with people turning to the Devil for refuge with little or no faith in the Almighty. People were either being enslaved or killed by the Devil's "Reaper", so-called people who have sold their soul to the Devil for dark powers. The hero, Solomon Kane was an evil warrior, who did many wrong deeds. When he came to know that his soul is damned, he decides to mend his ways and turn to non-violence for His mercy. But fate has something sinister in store for him.

Cast-wise, Good job. James Purefoy was excellent in the titular role. Frankly speaking, I had little faith in a lesser-known actor playing a titular role, but James proved everybody wrong. He was like the shining armor for the movie. Others, even though little-known, played their part decently enough to leave any bad impression.

"Solomon Kane" strength is clearly its stylish direction, taut storyline, fine character development, ample sword play, and adequate running time. Kudos to the Director Michael Bassett, who gives the movie a very stylish look. The camera-work, slow-motion sequence, action choreography added great depth to the movie. Giving scope for character development is very important and it was properly showcased.

The movie derides itself a bit in the ending. Like most action movies, the ending is reduced to One-Versus-All fight, giving a little unrealistic feel. Also, the ending came a little too fast. Meaning, the So-Called-Very-Bad-Guys were overpowered quite quickly and easily by the protagonist. Having said that, this movie is far better than most movies in the similar category.

Overall, "Solomon Kane" is a Very Good movie reduced to Good movie till the end. But, this well-crafted movie is a visual treat & satisfactory watch.

My Verdict: 7/10

"Solomon Kane" premiered in my country at the annual Fantastic Film Festival and I was lucky enough to accompany a friend of mine who managed to arrange an interview with writer/director Michael J. Basset who came to the festival to present his film. This was before I watched the movie and, although it might not be very objective of me, it definitely helps to enjoy and appreciate the movie even more when you just listened to an enthusiast director defending, illuminating and promoting his work. The truth is that I was already looking forward to see "Solomon Kane", but after even more so after hearing out Michael J. Basset. He's a truly spirited and devoted narrator, who explained that he insisted on writing and directing the film himself even though the production studio preferred a more famous name, simply because he grew up with the stories of Robert E. Howard. Howard is particularly known for creating the character of Conan the Barbarian. That character, immortalized on film by Arnold Schwarzenegger, pretty much single- handedly generated the Sword & Sorcery hype in the early 80's, whereas Solomon Kane always inexplicably remained a vague and unexplored side character in spite of its dark and potentially fascinating persona. Michael J. Basset explained that was hoping for a revival of the Sword & Sorcery sub genre, especially after the gigantic success of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, but that it sadly never came. With "Solomon Kane" he hopes – and surely a lot of wildly enthusiast fans with him – that this type of entertaining cinema will revive after all.

Somehow I doubt, however, that "Solomon Kane" will become a great success. The main character is intriguing, the production values are more than adequate, the screenplay is solid enough (albeit a bit superficial and ordinary) and there are multiple powerful sequences, but … the atmosphere of the film is too dark and the violence is too graphical, I'm afraid. Especially if targeted at the fans of the aforementioned "Lord of the Rings" movies, I presume "Solomon Kane" will come out as slightly too disturbing and cruel. This is terrific popcorn entertainment for brutes and savages, like myself, who think that "Lord of the Rings" is boring and other nowadays fantasy stuff like "Stardust" and comic book darkness like "X-men" is for kids. Unfortunately, the niche market for genuinely grim Sword & Sorcery movies is rather selected.

During the intro, the film introduces Solomon Kane as a relentless and barbaric warrior who's even feared by the men fighting under his command. He thinks to have stumbled upon a treasure, but instead he comes face to face with a devil's disciple who claims Kane's soul to pay for all the sins he committed. He manages to escape and find shelter in a monastery where he repents and makes a personal oath with God never to kill another man again. Meanwhile, the 17th century British countryside is besieged by an evil masked sorcerer who enslaves innocent peasants and recruits backwoods villains for his growing army. When the eerily masked sorcerer kills the members of a traveling family that harbored him and kidnaps their beautiful teenage daughter, Solomon Kane is forced to break his oath and kill again… but this time in the name of God. The battle takes him back to his birthplace, where another couple of unpleasant surprises await him. "Solomon Kane" is obviously intended as the beginning of a franchise. There's plenty of room left open for a sequel, a prequel or even a few spin-offs. I sincerely hope that Michael J. Basset will be offered the chance to write and direct them. He deserves it, not only because of his enthusiasm or because he loves the characters, but also because he clearly grew as a director since his previous two smaller and more modest genre films "Deathwatch" and "Wilderness". The film itself is well-paced, the dialogs are fluent albeit a bit primitive and the choreography is excellent. "Solomon Kane" isn't a non-stop series of bloody battles and splatter effects, but still a handful of sequences are hard to stomach. James Purefoy isn't the world's greatest actor, but he's definitely charismatic enough for the title role, and he receives fine support from the more experienced actors surrounding him, including Max Von Sydow and Pete Postlethwaite.

Created by Robert E. Howard (best known for his Conan the Barbarian), Solomon Kane has origins in pulp fiction before the leap onto the big screen now, starring James Purefoy as the titular British adventurer who wanders the world in search of evil to vanquish. Serving as an origin story to introduce the character to new audiences, it's quite the standard swords and sorcery film with a tinge of theological elements, with little surprise being offered as it focuses on the man's redemption.

Damned by the devil's reaper and escaping from the clutches of having his soul claimed in North Africa, Solomon Kane finds peaceful refuge in an English church, spending a period of overturning his violent past, before being expelled to seek his own destiny. He hooks up with the Crowthorn family (the head of the household played by the late Pete Postlethwaite) who are en route to a new life in America, before discovering that most of England is now under the clutches of the mythic sorcerer Malachi (Jason Flemyng), and it is up to our hero to try and kill a lot of birds with a single stone, with the liberation of the land, the rescue of damsel in distress Meredith Crowthorn (Rachel Hurd-Wood), and hopefully, redeeming his soul as part of the process.

The storyline hinges on Solomon's downward path from ruthless warrior to a peace loving man who renounced violence, before he's being dragged back to the killing game again, with swords and that occasional (not sure why though) use of the pistols. The first half dwells on this dalliance in not wanting to break his vow of non-violence, until evil comes knocking on his doorstep, and throwing his vow out of the window in order to rid scores of faceless goons dispatched through sword parries and thrusts, coupled with plenty of CG blood and decapitations.

To expand the mythos Solomon's backstory gets brought up through a series of flashbacks, which will suggest to you its significance early in the film on how the finale will come together. Writer-director Michael J. Bassett's story and direction follows a very formulaic path that shortcuts at every opportunity, such that the final assault and battle in a castle has loopholes of The Rock proportions. The story plods between the action sequences, and just about throws plenty of stuff from a zombie sequence to a crucifixion scene even, just because it can. Purefoy perpetually scowls throughout the film, though looks convincing enough to be the skilled warrior who relies on a rapier and a cutlass on each hand.

This is one of those films that isn't great, but isn't all that bad either provided you haven't been jaded by countless of other similar looking films, and with the lack of a main villain to complement and make the hero look good, choosing to hastily introduce him only at the end. For an action adventure it doesn't have any surprise elements, with a series of action and CG that seemed to have that ring of familiarity to it.

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.

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-

It's 1600. Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) leads a British privateer ship into battle in North Africa. His men are massacred by demons and he comes face to face with the Devil's Reaper. He escapes back to England. After giving away his wealth to an abbey, the monks send him away to his ultimate destiny. He heads for home despite his conflict with his father and the death of his older brother. He joins the Crowthorns (Rachel Hurd-Wood, Pete Postlethwaite, Alice Krige), a Puritan family traveling to the new world. He had renounced violence until the attack of the evil sorcerer Malachi's men.

The story is a dark mix of fantasy and history. Purefoy keeps it compelling. I like Postlethwaite and the movie gets a bit muddled without him. It would have been nice to keep him and Krige with Purefoy as they go rescue their daughter. This is a fine example of a mid-level budget adventure but it's not superior. The good is that there is nothing obviously bad here.