Solomon Kane

User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 42 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 42
  2. Negative: 2 out of 42
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 24, 2015
    6
    The acting is pretty painful at some parts, and the characters are sloppily written and uninteresting, but the thing that saves Solomon Kane from complete failure is its dazzling visuals and well executed action.
  2. Oct 21, 2012
    5
    Solomon Kane is a moody, violent and mostly entertaining quasi-historical action/horror movie experience. The influence of Hammer films and 2004's Van Helsing are obvious, though this film is more straight-faced and serious than either. James Purefoy makes a serviceable leading man, and his flawed titular hero has surprising depth to him, though the use of his natural West Country accentSolomon Kane is a moody, violent and mostly entertaining quasi-historical action/horror movie experience. The influence of Hammer films and 2004's Van Helsing are obvious, though this film is more straight-faced and serious than either. James Purefoy makes a serviceable leading man, and his flawed titular hero has surprising depth to him, though the use of his natural West Country accent is oddly distracting after his many roles using neutral or American voices. All due respect to the veteran talent of Max von Sydow and Pete Postlethwaite for bringing a little gravitas to proceedings, and for giving far better performances than they actually have to, though the rest of the cast are uninspiring, particularly Rachel Hurd-Wood's rather bland and annoying damsel in distress. The visuals of the film are creepy and unusual enough to be interesting, the action is well-executed and bloody, but the big finale (on which director Michael J. Bassett clearly spent the vast majority of the film's budget) is oddly underwhelming and emotionally dead. The plot as a whole is also a bit too formulaic, with the big narrative twists signposted far too obviously. Solomon Kane delivers in terms of atmosphere, gothic visuals and unflinchingly brutal fight sequences, but still falls short because of its cut-and-paste story and underdeveloped characters. In truth, it's a better film than the aforementioned distant relative Van Helsing, though I do miss the tongue-in-cheek self-deprecation of that film, and the slightly camp thrills of Hammer - there is such a thing as taking yourself too seriously. With such a strong aesthetic and dark themes, Solomon Kane's failings could be ironed out in a sequel, which might become something more unique and rewarding for the viewer. Whether this sequel emerges at some point in the near future, or at all, remains to be seen. Expand
Metascore
48

Mixed or average reviews - based on 15 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 15
  2. Negative: 3 out of 15
  1. Reviewed by: Scott Tobias
    Sep 28, 2012
    50
    There are no laughs in Solomon Kane; the sole attempt at a joke doesn't score, but it's a bracing reminder that humor exists. Instead, Bassett and Purefoy, his charisma-impaired star, get down to the grim, colorless business of vanquishing evil in a world where it settles like a black fog.
  2. Reviewed by: Lou Lumenick
    Sep 28, 2012
    38
    Michael J. Bassett's Solomon Kane is been there, done that.
  3. Reviewed by: Mark Olsen
    Sep 27, 2012
    70
    Solomon Kane succeeds by embracing its identity as a straightforward genre exercise, complete with bone-crunching and blood-spurting action. By not aiming for more, it hits its target.