UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Adventure >

Solomon Kane

Solomon Kane (2009)

September. 24,2009
|
6.1
|
R
| Adventure Fantasy Action

A nomadic 16th century warrior, condemned to hell for his brutal past, seeks redemption by renouncing violence, but finds some things are worth burning for as he fights to free a young Puritan woman from the grip of evil.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Karry
2009/09/24

Best movie of this year hands down!

More
Cathardincu
2009/09/25

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

More
Noutions
2009/09/26

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

More
Brendon Jones
2009/09/27

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

More
Wuchak
2009/09/28

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-

More
Reno Rangan
2009/09/29

There's no reason, but after a long due I saw this. I'm pretty impressed with the film's production, but in the end it was an average film for me. James Purefoy was good, but the story needed someone very husky looking actor to play the Solomon. That's what spoiled my watch, other than that I enjoyed most of the film. Because the tone and the pace were excellent, but it was a predictable story.A savage warrior leading his men somewhere in the Northern Africa, when he's sensing he almost defeated them, comes to know his soul is damned. He escapes there, leaves his all that life behind and looks for a peaceful future. He was born to be a warrior, that's why he left his own kingdom. So in his second chance to rediscover his path, he must achieve the impossible to defeat his opponent.Full of dark and wet atmosphere really gives that required medieval look. The locations were well used and also the costumes, so if you like films that sets in this era, particularly stunts, then you might enjoy it. But if you ask me, I would say it is just a one time watchable film. Entertainment is guaranteed, but because of something, the film does not not look complete. So recommended for the selected viewers.6/10

More
AMar_rom
2009/09/30

We are in England somewhere in the 1610's. In the film Solomon Kane is seen initially to fight in a naval battle being captain in the English navy. Years later we find him settled in a monastery seeking desperately a quite life in the presence of God. After the urge of the local chaplain he is convinced to pay a visit to his old household and meet his father and brother. The English countryside, however, is not a safe place. Villages are ravaged by local bandits who kill and enslave at will. It is clear that Kane tries to avoid any confrontation. During the trip he befriends a family of travelers who aim to reach the local port and take a ship to the New World (America). The movie continues recounting the events till his arrival back at his ancestral home.Solomon Kane was a character in a number of stories written by Robert E. Howard the creator of Conan the Barbarian. Kane was a Puritan, a man driven by a strong religious belief in the power of Good and the necessity to serve justice in a corrupt world. Kane fought in his youth under Sir Francis Drake and then disillusioned perhaps from the violence led a solitary life as a drifter in continental Europe and Africa. The film was a pleasant surprise for me. Kane is depicted as a troubled man with a strong urge to serve justice with a religious fervor. His Puritan upbringing coupled with his military past make him a very interesting character. A very good film that made me want to read some of the Kane stories of Robert Howard.

More
bowmanblue
2009/10/01

I read another review on Solomon Kane and it described it as 'They way Van Helsing should have been, if it wasn't rubbish.' Personally, I think that's a little unfair on Hugh Jackman's portrayal of the legendary vampire hunter, but, in some ways, I can see the reason behind it.Solomon Kane is a very similar beast. It's set in the middle ages in England and has a very familiar/Van Helsing-ish feel to it, i.e. you have the long haired man in black (complete with hat) fighting monsters (only Solomon has to contend with mainly demons and witches, rather than vamps and werewolves) while on a path to redemption.However, the one very noticeable difference is the budget. Van Helsing had one, Solomon Kane has less of one. Therefore there's less CGI special effects (some may say that's a bonus, based on the quality of Van Helsing's) and less big action scenes. What you have instead is some 'gritty realism' - or as gritty and real as a film can be about slaying mythical creatures.Solomon Kane is basically Van Helsing, minus the budget, plus the gore. It's actually quite good, for what it is. It'll never be more than a cult hit, but if you're into sword and sorcery (and want to see the first hero ever who sports a West Country accent) then you can do worse than this.

More