RADiUS-TWC | Release Date: September 28, 2012
6.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 58 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
28
Mixed:
26
Negative:
4
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
cryhardhumorFeb 24, 2015
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 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
HalfwelshmanOct 21, 2012
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. JamesSolomon 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
LeZeeOct 4, 2016
In the 17th England, a ruthless warrior set to rediscover his path.

There's no reason, but after a long due I saw this. I'm pretty impressed with the film's production, but in the end it was an average film for me. James Purefoy was good,
In the 17th England, a ruthless warrior set to rediscover his path.

There's no reason, but after a long due I saw this. I'm pretty impressed with the film's production, but in the end it was an average film for me. James Purefoy was good, but the story needed someone very husky looking actor to play the Solomon. That's what spoiled my watch, other than that I enjoyed most of the film. Because the tone and the pace were excellent, but it was a predictable story.

A savage warrior leading his men somewhere in the Northern Africa, when he's sensing he almost defeated them, comes to know his soul is damned. He escapes there, leaves his all that life behind and looks for a peaceful future. He was born to be a warrior, that's why he left his own kingdom. So in his second chance to rediscover his path, he must achieve the impossible to defeat his opponent.

Full of dark and wet atmosphere really gives that required medieval look. The locations were well used and also the costumes, so if you like films that sets in this era, particularly stunts, then you might enjoy it. But if you ask me, I would say it is just a one time watchable film. Entertainment is guaranteed, but because of something, the film does not not look complete. So recommended for the selected viewers.

6/10
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
morfilFeb 2, 2016
This film quickly became absolutely tedious, with poor action and unsatisfying action sequences, buttressed by horrible pacing and embarrassing dialog. The character of Solomon Kane had wonderful potential, again, with his conflicted andThis film quickly became absolutely tedious, with poor action and unsatisfying action sequences, buttressed by horrible pacing and embarrassing dialog. The character of Solomon Kane had wonderful potential, again, with his conflicted and complex back-story, but he became static, with only formulaic motivation propelling his dull and boring quest. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews