Solomon Kane

Plot synopsis:
The film opens in North Africa, 1600, with the English mercenary Solomon Kane as he leads his ship's crew into battle against the Ottoman occupiers of a fortress town. After defeating the defenders, Kane and his men raid the fortress, where most of the crew are killed by demons. Kane fights his way to the throne room, but, before he can loot the riches, he is confronted by a demon that tells him his soul is forfeit to Satan. Solomon rejects his fate and jumps out a window. Following this encounter, Solomon returns to England and finds sanctuary in a monastery. After a prophetic dream, the abbot apologetically expels Kane, and Kane travels by foot to his ancestral estate, from which he had been expelled in his youth after defying his father. Along the way, he is ambushed by robbers who mock his vow of pacifism and leave him for dead. He is found and treated by the Crowthorns, a family of Puritans traveling west to the New World. When the Crowthorns are slaughtered by corrupted followers of the evil sorcerer Malachi, Kane renounces his vows and swears to avenge their deaths and rescue Meredith Crowthorn, who has been marked by a witch and kidnapped by the Masked Rider, Malachi's lieutenant.
Kane battles Malachi's followers across the countryside, rescuing many captives but not finding Meredith. On his journey, he meets a deranged priest who explains Malachi's followers are taking the weaker survivors of their raids as slaves and corrupting the strong into soldiers. The priest tries to feed Kane to his parishioners, who have become ghouls, but Kane escapes, only to face the robbers who attacked him earlier, now corrupted servants of Malachi. He kills two of the robbers and interrogates the survivor, who tells Solomon that Meredith is dead. Kane throws the robber to the ghouls, and, believing his quest for redemption has failed, drinks to excess at a country inn. Former shipmates recognise him and try to recruit him as a leader of a resistance against Malachi, but Kane refuses. Malachi's followers attack the inn at dawn and crucify the leaders of the resistance, including Kane. As Kane hangs on the cross, Meredith cries out his name from her cage in the back of the raiders' wagon; Kane realises that he still has a chance to save her and pulls himself free. Before Malachi's remaining men can finish him, they are killed by survivors of the resistance, who take Kane to safety. Kane is healed by an old witch and is soon anxious to confront the raiders.
The resistance explain Malachi's background as a former healer who made a bargain with the Devil, and reveal that he now lives in Kane's ancestral home. Kane leads them into the castle via an underground passage, and, as the resistance fights Malachi's soldiers, Kane heads for the dungeons and frees many of the captives. There he finds not Meredith but his father, who explains that the Masked Rider is Kane's older brother Marcus, whom Kane thought he had accidentally killed after his banishment. Instead, Marcus was critically injured, and, when healers failed to revive him, his father turned to Malachi. Disfigured and turned to Malachi's will, Marcus became the Masked Rider. Solomon reluctantly acquiesces to his father's request and kills him, then heads to the throne room to confront Malachi. There, Kane finds Meredith in a cage, and as she warns him of a trap, Marcus stabs him in the back. Kane tries to reason with Marcus, but they engage in a duel; Kane wins after setting Marcus on fire and decapitating him. Malachi uses Meredith's blood to release a demon sent to claim Kane's soul, but Kane shoots Malachi dead and sacrifices himself to close the portal. Meredith believes Kane to be dead, but he awakens and explains that he has finally redeemed his soul. Kane reunites Meredith with her remaining family and buries his father and brother. In a final voice-over, he declares his intention to roam the Earth and oppose the forces of darkness.

Tags: dark, fantasy, gothic, murder, violence, flashback, good versus evil, action, revenge

Review:
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.
in my book there are 3 classes of fantasy.high, full of goblins elves and knights in shining amour.low, a fantasy world without all the classical elements no elves no fairies no blazing swords, and dark, born from madman's nightmares and populated with them dark place dark worlds and a serious take on the genre.Kane falls into the latter,for a low budget film its certainly well done, the character is fairly close to the story's, the props and costumes are reasonably accurate.the fighting direction is also true to the character no frivolous swashbuckling here lethal moves to great effect.Kane was not some marvelesque hero wasting motion and energy in his strikes, as one character in a story put it "he is the most lethal swordsmen I've ever seen".
this is a dark fantasy film with a touch of horror, aiming to reveal Kane's hitherto unknown origins.if you like to support good independent films go see it if all your interested in is mindless action.....
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.
Solomon Kane was pretty good, perhaps it didn't do well in the States, because there were no American A listers in the cast, but it had Pete Postlethwaite and Max Von Snow apart from James Purefoy in the lead, so you could hardly say it didn't have it's quota of serious actors in it.Yes it was a tad predictable, well it was from the creator of Conan, so you could hardly expect high art.
But, unlike you would have expected, it was quite a dark film, one mans quest to redeem his soul, and you believed in it, Purefoy played the complete ruthless murderer and the tortured soul, and in the confines of the film you believed it.It betrayed it's lowish budget, with a lack of major CGI except where it was needed, and at the beginning the model work was a bit obvious (like Conan all those years ago) but instead went for serious good makeup and prosthetics,and the fight scenes when they happened where vicious, bloody and really well choreographed, Purefoy does good action.
After so many disappointments in the past when stories falter or special effects either take over the screen or are shoddy and laughable I alway feel as apprehensive as I do interested when I start watching a film like this.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
1. Solomon Kane is one of R.E. Howard's strongest character creations alongside Conan the Barbarian, and has gone down in fantasy/genre history as the more complex, darker, anti-hero.
Because it was probably my favourite film of 2009 when I saw it the first time and the appeal still hasn't worn off - it rings of good old fashioned movie making magic - a hero albeit a dark one (but hey Batman's dark so that's not a bad camp to be in), great sets/costumes, sword fighting and just the right amount of terror and adventure combined.10.
Whilst the stark locations and incessant rain set a dour mood, the excellently choreographed fight scenes are anything but.However, the real backbone to this film lies in the contrast between the commanding, arrogant Solomon Kane of the opening scene and the tortured, penitent figure we see during the next few scenes, before the vengeful anti-hero he is forced to become.Some scenes are just so damned cool you will want to watch and re-watch them.
"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.
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.
I found the story weak and predictable, the acting poor, the effects were very good for a small budget film, but did nothing for the overall plot.Maybe as a fan of the Comics you may get something more from this, otherwise I would suggest that you skip it and not waste you cinema fare on this boring adventure..
"Solomon Kane" is your usual predictable fantasy movie filled with a whole lot of stereotypes.Just take a look on the characters.
While the movie isn't truly faithful to the source materials, I felt it captured the spirit of Solomon Kane and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it!While most people are saying this is a low budget film, I read that it had a $40 million budget.
However that does not detract from the extremely strong casting in James with the late and great Pete Postlethwaite, gritty back drops and convincing action as Purefoy throws himself with abandon in the the sword fights he really looks like he knows what he's doing.
SOLOMON KANE looked to be something a bit different: a central anti-hero character that doesn't have the loyal fan base of Conan, and who only appeared in a handful of stories.
Solomon Kane was a character I absolutely absorbed and over the years, I imagined what a film adaptation would be like.
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.
Before watching this film a number of friends had told me that the plot seems slow and the strange West Country accents seem out of place, this did mean that while looking forward to a viewing as I'm a big fan of the whole fantasy genre, I did hold off for a while at the risk it could be a real disappointment.Well I finally watched Soloman Kane and am pleased to say that I really enjoyed it.
Howard's (that's right – the same author who created 'Conan') 'Solomon Kane' on half the budget as that of Jackson's 'LOTR.' James Purefoy, now seemingly a potential leading man for every sword n' sorcery epic (see 'Ironclad') is perfectly cast as the lone swordsman on the path to redemption from past atrocities, giving Solomon Kane a rough, gritty, dangerous intensity reminiscent of Clint Eastwood but at the same time, a very human quality.
Dan Lausten grey colour pallet works really well for the best fight seen in the forest, but much of the action happens at night and you end up not seeing very much.The story itself is a little all over the place, starring out as something epic, Solomon Kane versus Satan, to a story about Solomon wanting to find peace, to an evil force taking over much of England and Solomon stopping them and saving a girl who he hardly knew.
I would to have like to have seen Solomon battle Satan's forces more or how he would have used his skills for good instead of personal greed.Purefoy is most famous for playing Marc Anthony in Rome and he was seen as a potential action star: he was cast to play V in V for Vendetta but actually walked out during filming and was seen as a potential Bond.
Damned to hell, ruthless buccaneer Soloman Kane (James Purefoy) renounces his wicked ways, but in order to save his soul forever, he must keep his promise to rescue priest's daughter Meredith (Rachel Hurd-Wood) from an evil sorcerer.With its epic story and grim sword and sorcery action, it comes as no surprise to me to learn that Solomon Kane is based on a character created by Robert E.
Strong support from the always under-rated Pete Postlethwaite and Alice Krieg.I just wish Michael Bassett had made a film about his own medieval sword and sorcery hero and left Solomon Kane well enough alone ....
So Solomon's soul is damned and is the devil's for the taking, so Solomon vows to be a good person and there lies his struggle throughout the movie.The sword fighting is great, the fighting sequences are definitely good except for one spot where a guy with an axe comes swinging at Solomon Kane and there are so many camera cuts it makes you nauseous, but beside that all the fighting is very enjoyable.Solomon really reminds you of a kind of Aragorn slash Van Helsing character, and so he's very likable.
I wasn't particularly caring of the differences from the original works of the Solomon Kane character; overall it was a great production.As a fan of the genre I can't help but notice the similarities of James Purefoy's protagonist character to Hugh Jackmans Van Helsing, it did really seem like the same character.
If you enjoy fantasy movies then I feel this is well worth watching, just not the film it could have been (should have tightened up climatic scenes with better sword fights and less monsters, focused more on Kane rather than random helpers)..
Howard (1906-1936), who was also the creator of Conan the Barbarian and the father of modern heroic fantasy.But even with that illustrious origin, I never found the character to be particularly attractive.So, I went to see the film Solomon Kane with a bit of distrust, exacerbated by the bad omen that the movie was kept "in the shelves" for a few years before receiving a poor distribution around the world.To my surprise, Solomon Kane ended up being a very entertaining film with very good action scenes and a well written screenplay which constructed the main character on a quite interesting way.Director Michael J.
Bassett has only two other movies in his filmography (the modest but excellent war horror film Deathwatch; and Wilderness, which I have not seen), and the idea of putting him in front of an ambitious multi-national co-production may sounded risky, but the truth is that he made a very solid work in Solomon Kane, because he could create good action scenes and an excellent atmosphere.As for the screenplay (which was written by Bassett), I appreciated the fact that it did not try to "modernize" the story; it would have been easier (and more economic) to move the story to modern times, but if the film had done that, it would have lost the heroic "taste" from the main character, as well as the historical content from Howard's tales, and his almost academic examination of the social contrasts during the puritan period in England.However, I cannot deny that the classic conflict between God and Satan, along with the many Christian references, could be interpreted as simple religious propaganda nowadays.It may have been an applauded style in Howard's time, but nowadays, it takes the risk of feeling outdated.Even though I enjoyed Solomon Kane pretty much, I found an important problem in it: its main actor.James Purefoy lacks of that magnetic presence which distinguishes the most memorable heroes from the big screen, at the same time his performance feels a bit bland the whole time.Besides, his physical characterization reminded me of Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings trilogy, a situation which is a bit unfortunate for inviting comparisons to a highly superior actor who brought a brilliant performance in a similar role.As for the supporting cast from Solomon Kane, we have solid performances from the excellent actors Pete Postlethwaite, Jason Flemyng and Max von Sydow.Despite my objections about Purefoy's performance in the leading role, I found Solomon Kane to be a very competent adventure film, which is visually attractive at the same time it tells an interesting story.I took a nice surprise with this film..
A very good film that made me want to read some of the Kane stories of Robert Howard..
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.
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.
With a strong actor like James Purefoy leading the charge in this supernatural period piece could they finally deliver something worthy of the genre or will this be just another forgettable journey to medieval times.Solomon Kane follows mercenary of Queen Elizabeth who denounces violence fearing his destiny is leading to hell, but when an innocent family and kidnap their daughter in front of him, he is forced back into action to rescue her and hopefully that of his eternal soul as well.
The non A-list cast did a believable and watchable job and the locations, cinematography and special effects were pretty good and overall this did not feel like a low budget movie.I'd love to see much more of the Solomon Kane character, and if this movie is anything to go by it would be a worthy franchise.
It is a fantasy movie, not really that bad and it might easily have passed with a rather good review - if it hadn't been called Solomon Kane.
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.
While not a stunning movie, SOLOMON KANE is another serviceable entry in the sword-and-sorcery genre, and is based on a character created by Robert E.
This time, how ever, the end result is something in between a good movie and pulpy silliness.Of course, the pulp fiction daemons don't come as a surprise, as Solomon Kane is one of the better known, yet not as famous, characters created by the fevered mad man of a writer, Robert E.