Solomon Kane

"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. (29/07/2023)

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)

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. (03/04/2011)

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)

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: (24/05/2010)