Comments on: Solomon Kane – Review

By: Mrpotter

Mrpotter — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:49:51 +0000

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.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:01:43 +0000

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?

By: Al Harron

Al Harron — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:06:07 +0000

“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.

By: Mrpotter

Mrpotter — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:50:36 +0000

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…