1275 replies to this topic

[Axerules]

The results are an impressive looking film on a reasonably limited budget, technically spectacular in terms of production design, cinematography and its epic score. Storywise, it leaves a lot to be desired, because it has many tonal and pacing problems, mainly because like the source material, it's all handled very seriously.

Possibly diehard fans of Howard's anti-hero might appreciate the effort by Bassett, as might those who can appreciate a movie merely for its FX eye candy. Even so, Roy Thomas' comic books remain the best introduction to the character while this film is a decent though unspectacular companion piece at best.

www.comingsoon.net/news/torontonews.php?id=59075

Has the reviewer really read the Solomon Kane yarns? "Roy Thomas' comics" (not REH's stories) would be "the best introduction" to SK?

[crossplain pilgrim]

Hey, Strom! I understand your concern, but I don't think the reviews are all that negative. As far as I know, we have exactly four TIFF reviews to date. One is very positive, one is mostly positive, one is negative all the way, and the last one is lukewarm with some positive stuff in it. The one thing these reviewers seem to have in common is a lack of knowledge, understanding, or even interest in Sword and Sorcery films in general. Then, too, I can't say I have ever heard of these guys.

We have one reviewer who says the Kane film doesn't take itself too seriously. We have another who seems upset that an S&S film like Kane takes itself seriously at all. This is the reviewer who amster mentioned, the one who said Solomon Kane was an anti-hero and that the best introduction to Kane was the Marvel comic books. Unless these guys have some sort of national syndication, I am not too worried. I will start worrying when AICN changes its mind on the film, or Empire, Dark Horizons, CHUD, JoBlo, RopeOfSilicon, QuietEarth, Bloody Disgusting and some of the other fansites that actually influence the potential core audience for "Solomon Kane" start hammering the film. We will start getting those reviews after the Midnight Madness screening on the 16th.

[Crom's bells]

Also, you guys should keep in mind that tastes vary from reviewer to reviewer. Doesn't mean that just because one watches Solomon Kane, it makes him a fan of S&S. He could, say, be biased towards romance films, and favouritism as such may tint his glasses when reviewing other genres that go against his preferences

By the way CP, where's the other positive review? I can't seem to find it.

Edited by Crom's bells, 14 September 2009 - 04:11 AM.

[Waldgeist]

Much of that comes down to the fact that Bassett has filled the cast with strong dramatic actors who tend to hold the film's gravitas. James Purefoy isn't bad as Kane, but he definitely turns it up a few too many notches as he barks out his lines and keeps things very serious, which makes it difficult to warm up to him as a character.

So basically what the reviewer is saying here is: "The dialogue is way to much howardian for the general audience to like it, we wan't contemporary babbling please, you know.. like like like like in Transformers like like like awesome and like like like cool".

Idiot film critics

I think so far everything i've read makes me like the movie even more. I don't want wink eyed, contemporary dialogue (aka castrated american-youth-english).. i want theatrical, epic and strong dialogue, that sends chills down my spine for being so powerful... give me my cheese and i'll make sure to leave the whine at home

Edited by Waldgeist, 14 September 2009 - 09:03 AM.

[Ironhand]

Much of that comes down to the fact that Bassett has filled the cast with strong dramatic actors who tend to hold the film's gravitas. James Purefoy isn't bad as Kane, but he definitely turns it up a few too many notches as he barks out his lines and keeps things very serious, which makes it difficult to warm up to him as a character.

So basically what the reviewer is saying here is: "The dialogue is way to much howardian for the general audience to like it, we wan't contemporary babbling please, you know.. like like like like in Transformers like like like awesome and like like like cool".

Idiot film critics

I think so far everything i've read makes me like the movie even more. I don't want wink eyed, contemporary dialogue (aka castrated american-youth-english).. i want theatrical, epic and strong dialogue, that sends chills down my spine for being so powerful... give me my cheese and i'll make sure to leave the whine at home

So he objects to the movie's serious handling of the subject (which he admits is similar to the source). What does he want, "Bud Abbot and Lou Costello Meet the Wolfman"? Waldgeist, I wish you and I could sit down together some time for some whine and cheese.

[Crom's bells]

So basically what the reviewer is saying here is: "The dialogue is way to much howardian for the general audience to like it, we wan't contemporary babbling please, you know.. like like like like in Transformers like like like awesome and like like like cool".

You know, if there's one thing I really hate about today's movies, it's that some of the actors' dialogs seem to be "trying too hard". For example, I am getting very weary of movies where the characters talk like "Whoa whoa easy there cowboy" and looking very stupid. It's so unprofessional, it's laughable. Shia Lebeouf, for instance - I think he has great potential, but he gets tossed too often with cheesy dialogue that don't exude any masculinity at all.

There are a few who could pull this off, yet still display an aura of manliness and charm. Denzel Washington is one. Harrison Ford is a champ at this, no argument there. And Robert Downey Jr somewhat too imo.

I find it strange that there will be people who actually like seeing this kind of goofy, senseless, almost lack of intelligence, unrealistic way of speaking. It's almost like a mixture of trying too hard to ease up on the tension, yet at the same time it doesn't convince people of the severity of the situation.

Which is why, all the more, I think Solomon Kane's dialog can deliver, especially since James Purefoy looks quite amazingly gritty in the trailer

[crossplain pilgrim]

By the way CP, where's the other positive review? I can't seem to find it.

It's the original on e of the TIFF site by Collin Geddes. I'm sorry but I can't make the link work on my work computer. I believe Michael J. Bassett linked ot it on his site. Sorry.

[Crom's bells]

Ah thanks, found it.

[Strom]

Another TIFF review:

www.fearnet.com/news/reviews/b16619_tiff_09_review_solomon_kane.html

[Grimr]

Much of that comes down to the fact that Bassett has filled the cast with strong dramatic actors who tend to hold the film's gravitas.

And this is a bad thing? This sounds very positive to me. Solomon Kane is not a comedy.

[Grimr]

I've said it before, but I see mixed reviews as a positive thing - when a move really sucks, then most people agree it sucks. But SK has had some really positive reviews, so we at least know it isn't a bunch of arse. Not everyone's going to like it, just like not everyone likes REH. I can live with a few bad reviews.

[tbrittreid]

Much of that comes down to the fact that Bassett has filled the cast with strong dramatic actors who tend to hold the film's gravitas. James Purefoy isn't bad as Kane, but he definitely turns it up a few too many notches as he barks out his lines and keeps things very serious, which makes it difficult to warm up to him as a character.

So basically what the reviewer is saying here is: "The dialogue is way to much howardian for the general audience to like it, we wan't contemporary babbling please, you know.. like like like like in Transformers like like like awesome and like like like cool".

Idiot film critics

Excuse me? The quote you present clearly refers to the way Purefoy delivers his lines, while your "translation" of it is just as clearly about how they are written. Two very different things, making your post indefensible. And please don't cite something else the reviewer said; if that was what you were talking about, that is what you should have quoted rather than what you did (pre-emptory shot fired based on my past experiences of people on the internet posting things that inconsistent with the reality of the situation at hand to avoid admitting they were out of line or in error; just trying to save us both a little time).

[Waldgeist]

Much of that comes down to the fact that Bassett has filled the cast with strong dramatic actors who tend to hold the film's gravitas. James Purefoy isn't bad as Kane, but he definitely turns it up a few too many notches as he barks out his lines and keeps things very serious, which makes it difficult to warm up to him as a character.

So basically what the reviewer is saying here is: "The dialogue is way to much howardian for the general audience to like it, we wan't contemporary babbling please, you know.. like like like like in Transformers like like like awesome and like like like cool".

Idiot film critics

Excuse me? The quote you present clearly refers to the way Purefoy delivers his lines, while your "translation" of it is just as clearly about how they are written. Two very different things, making your post indefensible. And please don't cite something else the reviewer said; if that was what you were talking about, that is what you should have quoted rather than what you did (pre-emptory shot fired based on my past experiences of people on the internet posting things that inconsistent with the reality of the situation at hand to avoid admitting they were out of line or in error; just trying to save us both a little time).

Excuse me? Did i attack you personally? Is the reviewer your friend? Whatever it is... please tone down on the overreaction part and especially on the pre-emptive accusation of being a typical internet idiot that is too much of a wuss to admit an error on his side, because that is very much a typical internet idiot behaviour to make another person look like a fool before he even made an error and a very cheap way of forum-magic.

I admit I interpreted into the text of the reviewer that he also criticized the lines and not only the tone, because to me a line like "if i kill you, i am bound for hell" cannot be delivered anything else than serious and i guess most of the dialogues Mr. Bassett has written for Solomon are that serious and therefore i assumed the critic was also directed at what Solomon has to say, since you cannot deliver seriously written dialogue in a non-serious way, if you are not aiming for false comedy.

So make of that interpretation whatever you want to make of it, but to me it's not ok to jump onto someone with such force, because you don't agree with his interpretation of a written text, without even knowing his rational.

Cheers,
Waldgeist
PS: the line "Idiot film critics" was btw. a comedic reuse of what amster just used two posts before mine, which was indicated by the widely used smilie to give it the right spin.

Edited by Waldgeist, 14 September 2009 - 10:34 PM.

[Grimr]

Don't wish to fuel conflict here...far from it. But I just have to say that Waldgeist is one of the most intelligent and studied contributors to this forum, and, in my experience, not prone to indefensible bouts of opinion deserving of rebuke. That's all.

[Strom]

Please observe the rules of the forum everyone agreed to when they joined - especially the no name calling. Violations will not be tolerated.

Back on topic.


Solomon Kane Review

Bottom Line: Rousing action and mythic yet affecting characters should make this fantasy film a hit.

[crossplain pilgrim]

Well, just got back from a late night at school and Googled the Hollywood Reporter review. I knew someone would beat me to posting it. Odds on it would be Strom, too. This is really good news. The review is a very positive one. You can tell the reviewer wasn't just rating the film on points. He really liked it. And he works for a magazine that is a lot more important to the film's success than the Huffington Post. This is from a magazine that not only reviews the film, but makes an estimate of its chances in the marketplace. THR gets the attention of Industry insiders. Especially with remarks like...

"Though its niche audience may be a small one, it should perform extremely well with that group, and go on to do robust business in all ancillary markets."

That's the sort of shop talk that should brighten Mr. Hadida's and Mr. Berrow's day. Feeling really good about this one. If Kane could do as well with Variety, that would be icing on the cake. But I'll settle for an even split.

[crossplain pilgrim]

Here's another solidly positive TIFF review from the horror fansite FEARnet.com. It's pretty close to a rave. It closes with this:

"Nearly every component is just as it should be for a film like this, and I feel confident that the final product is precisely what Bassett and company set out to create. Solomon Kane is a well-shot, competently realized, and surprisingly entertaining mash-up of 16th century "wizards and warriors" and devil-may-care monster mayhem."

Two good reviews to no bad ones. Tonight, anyway. Felling pretty good. Long may it last. Here's the link:

FEARnet.com

[Kortoso]

You know what they say in Hollywood, never read the reviews.

[Crom's bells]

From the Hollywood Reporter:

"But he needn't have worried, and in the context of a rousing entertainment such as "Solomon Kane," this small fault may be safely overlooked."

Looking good

[crossplain pilgrim]

Here's another one, this time from Sceen Daily. Generally positive again. Here's a taste.

"For those who prefer their action-adventure movies to be long on sword-fighting, black magic and clenched-teeth emoting, Solomon Kane will be a must-see."

What I found interesting about this review is once again I believe we have a reviewer who is a little condescending about the S&S genre. He writes:

"This idolatry produces an unapologetically square-jawed film whose simplistic black-and-white heroism sometimes slips into cheesiness." Cheesiness used to mean low production values, but nowadays reviewers routinely use it to mean an old fashioned outlook, corrny lines, too traditional in its values, lacking modern sensibilities, Andy Hardy stuff.

But the guy somewhat redeems himself in my old S&S eyes whene he goes on to say:

"At first, the quaint quality of the proceedings feels like a detriment, but soon it begins to become a sort of virtue, recalling a time when adventure films didn?t feel the need to include zany sidekicks or romantic subplots to keep an audience entertained."

Of course there should be quite a few more reviews coming after the Midnight Madness Screening. But for now, the clear majority of the advance reviews have been positive. It reminds me of the old story. A guy jumps off the top of the Empire State Building. As he plummets past an open window on the 80th floor a cleaning guy inside shouts out to him, "How's it going?" The guy replies, "So far, so good!" That's how I feel about the reviews to date. So far, so good.

Here's the link.

Screen Daily