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. (05/22/2010)

"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)

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)

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)

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)