Understandably, given that it is based on a novel by pulp author Robert E. Howard and directed by Michael J. ‘Deathwatch’ Bassett, I had incredibly low expectations of Solomon Kane. Sadly however, my expectations were not low enough as I found myself subject to two hours of the most nonsensical, cliché riddled, low budget bilge that I have ever been paid to endure. Whilst getting paid to watch movies is a privilege I wholeheartedly adore, every now and then a film comes along that you would gladly pay not to see. Solomon Kane joins the likes of Dance Flick and Sorority Row, as a film upon which I bestow that dubious honor.
From its inexplicable opening, where a villainous Kane comes face to face with the ‘Devil’s Reaper’, (think Ghost of Christmases yet to come only not as scary) Solomon Kane’s character arc is more reminiscent of a U-bend than anything arc shaped. The titular ‘hero’ is instantly transformed into a puritanical dullard with no exposition of inner turmoil or soul searching, only to return, inexplicably, to his blood thirsty ways after witnessing the butchering of some guy he just met, played with hammy aplomb by a seemingly self-loathing Pete Postlethwaite.
Of course I am being deliberately trite in my recapping of the plot but I don’t write for the Independant so I am allowed. What follows is a ‘revenge by numbers’ tale that is fast becoming an overused trope of Hollywood cinema, see Edge of Darkness/Law Abiding Citizen for more. The worse than usual James Purefoy struggles with a character void of characterisation. You can almost hear the director screaming “More like Hugh Jackman, MORE LIKE HUGH JACKMAN!” from a megaphone just off camera but sadly Purefoy just isn’t up to it.
Purefoy flounders in a sea of horse shit, both literally and metaphorically, grossly unsupported by a cast of Holby City rejects. Despite being littered by baddies and nasties which infringe the copyright of everything from Lord of the Rings and Pan’s Labyrinth to I am Legend. Despite his desire the live a peaceful existence Kane fights everyone and no one at the same time. The most notable example of this is what I was expecting to be the climactic fight scene with some kind of Balrog. However, in the end Kane just shoots some bloke whose fallen asleep on a newspaper and the Balrog crumbles.
If there was one good thing about the lead performance (and there wasn’t), it was that it reminded me just how amazing Viggo Mortenson’s portrayal of Aragorn was. The similarities between the two literary characters are numerous but thankfully the performances could not be more contrasting. Aragorn is steady but brooding, a reluctant leader whilst Kane is an arrogant, dislikeable, gullible jerk who, despite the film’s heavy handed exposition, couldn’t lead a yellow Labrador in a high visibility jacket.
I can only hope that you heed my warning and avoid this film like the plague. If my review isn’t damning enough, this abomination is touted as a trilogy and that thought is far more terrifying than anything in this abomination of a film. So ,please, please, please, don’t encourage them by wasting your hard earned money.
N.B. Action heroes should never have a West Country accent!
No one should pay you to see movies. You lack any objectivity or knowledge on how to remotely judge a movie by it’s merits/flaws and you (judging by your other reviews) just rant or praise based on personal preference alone… the worst kind of critic possible.
Just because someone gave you a label saying “movie critic”, doesn’t make your opinion worth anything more than anyone elses.
Luckily people like Jonathan Ross, know how to judge a movie with the eyes of a genre critic…
Comment by Mrpotter — February 17, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
“Understandably, given that it is based on a novel by pulp author Robert E. Howard and directed by Michael J. ‘Deathwatch’ Bassett, I had incredibly low expectations of Solomon Kane.”
It’s only “understandable” if you’re not up to speed on Robert E. Howard. Howard’s work is collected in the Library of America and Penguin Modern Classics, two groups dedicated to preserving the very greatest in American and World literature. While I’m not making an appeal to authority, I do think that the LoA and Penguin know a little something about literature.
Also, Howard never wrote a Kane novel, but I doubt you care about such details.
“If there was one good thing about the lead performance (and there wasn’t), it was that it reminded me just how amazing Viggo Mortenson’s portrayal of Aragorn was. The similarities between the two literary characters are numerous but thankfully the performances could not be more contrasting… Aragorn is steady but brooding, a reluctant leader whilst Kane is an arrogant, dislikeable, gullible jerk”
None of those things actually describe the literary characters. Literary Aragorn was neither “brooding” nor a “reluctant leader,” while literary Kane was certainly none of those things.
Comment by Al Harron — February 17, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
Isn’t this exciting? Passionate film fans embroiled in debate! I confess Al, I haen’t read the Kane tales, my expectations were low cause I’m not a fan of Conan. Having said that, I have read the LOTR and definately got a vibe of reluctancy from old Strider.
Also, Mr Potter, I’ve realised you might be confused. I’m certainly not a paid film critic. I am a cinema projectionist, hence being paid to watch movies. Our concept for the site was reviews by film fans for film fans, in the hope of sparking just such debate.
For example ‘I think Jonathan Ross is a sicophantic boob who lets his desire to be chummy with people more famous than he is overshadow an admirable passion and understanding of the world of cinema.’ Discuss?
Comment by Lewis — February 18, 2010 @ 7:01 am
Well Jonathan Ross certainly bashes movies in his TV show quite harshly, no matter the amount of starts in them. Recent example: Valentines Day. A movie packed with stars, produced by a BIG studio and he got the balls and certainly wasn’t trying to be “chummy” with anyone and smashed it to pieces.
So I don’t really get where your accusation is coming from. Just because someone, sometimes breathes in and out and gives his words a thought, before he presses the “1″ on IMDB and feels himself to be a good critic, doesn’t make him someone who has no neck and just bends over to be famous with the famous.
Moderation is sometimes a good way to approach cinema/film critic in my opinion, since one should never overestimate ones opinion and taste too much when judging a movie. You never know if your impression is founded in something or you just had a bad day which made it impossible for you, to suspend your disbelief and enjoy a movie.
Comment by Mrpotter — February 18, 2010 @ 9:49 am