Solomon Kane

B-movie ambitions are in place. Solomon Kane is not bad, you can see it has a different approach. It doesn’t try to be monumental and over-the-top like Van Helsing, and it is visually attractive and relatively well put together; it even has an interesting plot in the first half. Although the basic storyline is banal, Purefoy and the straightforwardness of the plot make it work. Unfortunately, the film reaches its peak around the halfway mark, with a thrilling and fantastically shot battle scene in a forest. Things go downhill from there with excessive “fantasy elements” that degrade it. The ending, although restrained, is still uninteresting considering the gloomy aesthetic of the film. Overall, it is solid but uneven in the details. (13/11/2010)

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. (12/07/2010)

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)

Klaus Badelt's soundtrack runs full throttle and Czech realities eagerly try to disguise themselves as a dark medieval period, but that's about all the praise this action-packed film will receive from me. Solomon Kane tells a cheap fairytale instead of an ambitious fantasy. It could have worked in book form, but the film is surprisingly annoyingly transparent in its execution. (07/01/2011)

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 (27/06/2010)