The movie was made on a small budget by a no-name studio using
barely recognizable actors. It was originally released in 2009, but not in the United States ,
where it sat on a shelf until now, the dead zone of late September. Based on
its pedigree, you can see why no one has too many expectations for Solomon Kane’s success.
I had few expectations myself, which is probably why I’m not
piling hatred on top of it in giant shovelfuls. Yes, Solomon Kane is atrocious, but somehow it is a worthy entry into a
growing genre of low-budget medieval action extravaganzas.
Solomon Kane, my Internet
tells me, began as a serialized cartoon that originally ran in pulp magazines such
as Weird Tales. He was a pilgrim-hat-wearing
warrior turned Puritan who wandered 16th century Europe
“vanquishing evil in all its forms.” Slaying beasts was apparently all that
Solomon did because no mention is ever made to a Mrs. Kane, loyal steeds, stamp
collections or those community college classes Solomon took in the evenings
post-vanquishing pre-slaughtering. Nope, just slaying beasts, that’s all
Solomon did.
In that aspect, the movie version of Solomon Kane seems to adhere exactly to the printed version. He is
played by James Purefoy, a fine British actor who I will always remember as the
sneeringly proud Mark Antony in HBO’s Rome England
killing things and snarling at his troupe of thieves and murderers. In the
opening sequence, Solomon invades the wrong castle looking for treasure.
Instead he finds a demonic possession that seems to scare some sense into Evil
Solomon, upon which he renounces violence and becomes a Puritan and Righteous
Solomon.
He quickly falls into the clutches of the most wholesome Puritan
family to ever roam the thief-infested forests of the film’s universe. It’s not
long before the family, too pure and innocent for this movie, is attacked by
evildoers and Solomon must once again kill using primitive iron swords and
blunt instruments. He often stabs people with a knife and then drags the blade
upward or downward, unzipping his victims like winter coats. Let me juxtapose
that bloodletting with this tender little nugget: there are a number of biblical references,
including the names Solomon and Malachi, and also a point in the plot where
Solomon is, you know, CRUCIFIED! Subtle, huh? Fear not, though, the movie does
not ascend into religious allegory in fear that it might have to slow the rate
of eviscerated bodies.
Solomon Kane joins a
growing list of other medieval, quasi-magical or sword-and-sandal movies about
just men waging war in violent ways with barbaric conquerors. Consider Pathfinder, Centurion, The Eagle, Black Death, Ironclad, King Arthur or
the recent Conan reboot. (Widen the
net just a little and we also get Ridley Scott’s rather spectacular Kingdom of Heaven and HBO’s Game of Thrones.) The movies are often
made on smaller budgets, photographed in muddy and gloomy locations, and often
feature a single distinguishing male lead — I liked that Sean Bean one, I
forget the title. Most notably, though, many of the movies look, sound and feel
exactly alike. Quick, tell me the difference between The Eagle and Centurion?
In my head all I see are clinking swords.
This movie sticks to the conventions of the genre with its soupy
mix of blood and mud, and also its flawless warrior, who can’t be defeated
because the stunt guys apparently like pretending to be inept warriors who can
be easily killed by the star’s hiccups. Purefoy is forgettable and bland,
though he’s no better or worse than Jason Statham, Ray Stevenson, Karl Urban or
any of those other cinematic lightweights each billed as new-age action heroes.
The film also stars Pete Postlethwaite, who died last year, and Max von Sydow,
who will appear in your home movies for the right price.
Much of the plot is simply Solomon vanquishing evil from bad guys' faces, but also rescuing a sweet little virgin whose innocent blood fills the tanks on movies like this. Some certain supernatural elements turn up, including at the end when a lava monster felt a little left out and jumped through a portal from a different movie. The film leaves the door wide open for a sequel, but with this one sitting on the shelves for three years I doubt that will happen.
I didn’t like Solomon Kane.
I found its action preposterous and dull, and its story tepid and even more
dull. But somehow, against all the evidence in the film, I admire its tenacity
and motivation. For fans of this medieval genre, Solomon Kane is more of the same, but maybe that’s why the genre
thrives with such endurance. Who am I to spoil that?
