[crossplain pilgrim]

A few minutes before they screened "Solomon Kane" at the Alamo Draft House in Austin, they ran the coming attractions for "Sorceress," an incredibly cheap and campy sword and sorcery film from the '80's featuring laughable special effects and the more natural charms of the twin "actresses" who could barely swing their fiberglass swords. The audience howled with laughter. To me, that sums up the film world's previous approach to the sword and sorcery genre. Let's face it, that ridiculous piece of camp was not far off the mark from the general public's expectations for S&S. With the lone exception of the first Conan film, no film maker has ever approached a true S&S film with the sincere reverence exhibited by the makers of "Solomon Kane." Sword and Sorcery fans owe Samuel Hadida, Paul Berrow, Michael Bassett and James Purefoy a great debt. They have delivered a film we can enjoy, admire, and for which we don't have to make embarrassed excuses to family and friends about how the film doesn't really reflect the Sword and Sorcery stories that fill our bookcases.

I wanted to like this movie and I did. I think I finally understand why those Star Trek geeks dressed up like Klingons enjoy those films as much as they do. Ownership. The Star Trek films are their kind of films. Well, "Solomon Kane" is my kind of film. I have waited a long time for a Sword and Sorcery film made for grown-ups. If this film was only half as good as it is, it would have been good enough for me. But it is so much better than my prerequisites. As far as I am concerned, this one was tailor made for me.

Most of the criticisms I have read of the film fall into the "I would have done it differently" category. I think the debate over the origin story falls into that category because it all boils down to a matter of personal opinion. Of course, being REH fans, our opinions are epic in scope. I have to admit there is some stuff in "Blue Flame of Vengeance" that provides Bassett a basis for his interpretation. Of course, I still don't think the origin story was the way to go. However, Bassett didn't pull it out of whole cloth. Then too, the decision to go with an origin story did not begin with Bassett or Berrow, but the money guys who could green light the project. So, here is my critique of the film based on what I saw, not what I think I should have seen.

1. The Production Values- the cinematography by Dan Lausten is gorgeous, from the long shots of winter landscapes to dark dungeons lit by flicking torches. The beautifully framed shots exhibit just the right blend of realism and supernatural menace. The sets are impressive. The castle interiors are well rendered, as is the English village upon which the bad guys wreak havoc. The costumes look worn, functional and real. Kane's wheel lock pistols and other weapons are true to the period. The make-up work was first class and lacked that cheesy, low budget film look. The whole film has the look and feel of quality.

2. The music- the producers shelled out the money for a major composer, Klaus Badelt, and it paid off big time. The main theme is quite lyrical and, for me, reminiscent of Milkos Rosa's "El Cid" score. The rousing passages that accompany the action sequences made me think of the Morricone's Italian western themes, but with a driving drum beat. This is the level of music you would expect in a film by Spielberg, Luccas or Jackson.

3. The CGI shots were generally good to excellent. The shelling of the North African town, the spectacular exit of a witch fall into that category. There were a few shots that weren't completely convincing, but you could say that about even some of the genre films with 100 million dollar budgets.

4. The Acting- A lot of people have commented on the quality of James Purefoy's portrayal of the title character. He is very, very good. With his Mark Anthony character he had the advantage of a very complex guy whose broad physicality and outrageous wit masked the dangerous animal underneath. Solomon Kane is a more tightly focused character. An actor has to be very good indeed to exhibit the inner anguish of Kane's tortured soul, using just his eyes and subtle reactions to the other characters. Then, too, his rage that occasionally boils to the surface is pure Biblical retribution. Purefoy nails it all. But what also impressed me was the overall quality of all the actors, even in the smaller roles of villagers and evil henchmen. How many times have you seen a cheap fantasy film with professional athletes playing the hero's sidekicks and antagonists? Or villains who exhibit contemporary sensilbilities like the Australian guy in "Scorpion King" who looked like he was late for Rugby practice. Think of those bland, blank expressions on those bodybuilders standing behind the villain in so many S&S films. With the Kane henchmen, there are wheels turning behind those darting eyes. In Kane, everyone acts the part. It adds immeasurably to the realism of the film.

5. Direction - I may not agree with the choices Michael J. Bassett made as a writer, but I thought the quality of his direction was impressive. I really did not notice a single jerky handheld shot. When two characters have a conversation, Bassett gives us traditional over-the-shoulder POV shots. I hate that pseudo documentary style of swinging the camera back and forth between two characters to enhance the so-called realism. Bassett doesn't overuse extreme close-ups or have his actors speak very slowly with long pauses to show intensity. A mark of the film's quality are the abundance of crane shots and carefully planned tracking shots. Bassett knows how to shoot a film with a graceful, classic style. As I said, this is a movie primarily for grown-ups. For me, the ultimate mark of good direction is the smooth flow of the story. The scenes blend into to new ones in a logical way that move the story forward. While one could quibble with the content of the scenes ("I would have done it differently"), I did not notice any gaping holes in the plot. The film was all there. The events were supoorted by previous scenes. Bassett masters the elements of classic story telling.

6. Script - Yes, there was a lot to admire about the script. Whatever else you may say about Bassett's take on Solomon Kane's origins in the film, he is a character the audience can care about. He is human. He endures physical pain and spiritual despair. Did anyone really care if the Rock bought the farm in "Scorpion King" or Hugh Jackman took one in the neck in "Van Helsing?" Kane's inner struggle is at times poignant and painful to watch. He suffers, fights back, and eventually prevails. Bassett is fond of saying this is a "character driven" film. That is absolutely right.

So, is there anything in the film I want to criticize? Yea, a few things, but most of them are a matter of personal preference, not of any real shortcoming in the film.

1. The fights- they are generally shot in close-ups that make it difficult to follow some of the action. I would have preferred pulling back the camera so you could get a better view of all the movements of the combatants. The fights are brutal and realistic, but to me the film had the look of an R-rated film that has been edited to grab a PG-13 rating. I would have preferred a little more REH gore, but I think most people will be thoroughly satisfied. I would not be surprised to see an R-rated "Director's Cut" on DVD.

2. The film has that blue-gray patina that is so popular in films right now. I would have preferred a richer, more natural look on the order of the old Hammer films. However, there is not a doubt the overall cinematography is exquisite.

3. The film could have used some additional scenes that allowed the evil Malachai to intereact with his henchmen and explain more clearly his motivations and ultimate goals. Were such scenes cut? Someone has commented on shots that were featured in the trailer that do not appear in the film. I imagine they were edited to shorten the running time. Once again, they may show up in a Director's Cut.

So what is the bottom line? Well, for me it is this. I used to go to two or three movies a week for a good part of my young adult life. When westerns, war films, history epics, classic horror films, and especially high adventure films began to dry up, I found myself going two or three times a year. "Solomon Kane" offered me the chance to go back to the theater again. It was a great feeling. I think that any Sword and Sorcery fan who goes into their own theater with the idea they are going to enjoy an expertly crafted S&S film will have a great experience. Mine was downright emotional. When at the conclusion of the film James Purefoy kneels down at a grave site framed by an impossibly beautiful Devon seacoast, it is my absolutely personal opinion that he is my Solomon Kane. At long last, someone made my kind of film. As I write this and think back on the film, I am grinning with an exhilarating sense of fulfillment.

This post is a little longer than I expected, so I will need one more post to voice my views on some specific complaints about the film, like the crucifixion scene and the fire monster. Yes, I have something to say about those and a few other things. I'll be back.

[Waldgeist]

CP is a happy cat



And i am happy for you ... and damn envious!

This post has been edited by Waldgeist: 26 September 2009 - 08:21 AM

[Crom's bells]

Crom said:

Man, I feel bad posting here amidst all the people with years of experience in literature, esp REH-literature

Btw great review by CP too. It sounds like everything I'd want to watch from an adaptation of REH's stories, even if a loose one. Brrrr can't help but shiver in excitement now.

Anyone here knows whether Bassett has any intention to come to Asia for a screening of SK? For that matter, are there any more similar movie-fests which will feature SK too?

This post has been edited by Crom's bells: 26 September 2009 - 09:42 AM

[Waldgeist]

Crom said:

Man, I feel bad posting here amidst all the people with years of experience in literature, esp REH-literature

Btw great review by CP too. It sounds like everything I'd want to watch from an adaptation of REH's stories, even if a loose one. Brrrr can't help but shiver in excitement now.

Anyone here knows whether Bassett has any intention to come to Asia for a screening of SK? For that matter, are there any more similar movie-fests which will feature SK too?

There is a film fest in Spain they are planning to attend if i recall correctly.

[Strom]

Nice review CP - one must assume the money guys who forced the origin did so with the understanding that it would be necessary to sell the movie. Without a distributor yet - and having such a difficult time securing one for all these months - the explanation and necessity of the origin story really has no merit. As a fan of Conan the Barbarian, this movie sounds like it falls into the same category of a great s&s film - just not true to REH's character. If it was, I sure you would've led your review with that statement. That is disappointing - but very familiar ground.

Maybe next time.

That said, I can not wait to see it and enjoy a great s&s movie - just like CTB.

[Waldgeist]

Strom, on 26 September 2009 - 04:45 PM, said:

Nice review CP - one must assume the money guys who forced the origin did so with the understanding that it would be necessary to sell the movie. Without a distributor yet - and having such a difficult time securing one for all these months - the explanation and necessity of the origin story really has no merit.

"No distributor" is only correct for the US. The rest of the world has already signed on, so the merit of following the suggestions of the people with the money already paid off, because even though the US companies always see their domestic market as the most important one, there is a lot of money to be made outside of the US. (good example Golden Compass scored 70 Million in the US but over 300 Million in the Rest of the World)

Cheers,
Waldgeist

[Strom]

Waldgeist, on 26 September 2009 - 11:30 AM, said:

Strom, on 26 September 2009 - 04:45 PM, said:

Nice review CP - one must assume the money guys who forced the origin did so with the understanding that it would be necessary to sell the movie. Without a distributor yet - and having such a difficult time securing one for all these months - the explanation and necessity of the origin story really has no merit.

"No distributor" is only correct for the US. The rest of the world has already signed on, so the merit of following the suggestions of the people with the money already paid off, because even though the US companies always see their domestic market as the most important one, there is a lot of money to be made outside of the US. (good example Golden Compass scored 70 Million in the US but over 300 Million in the Rest of the World)

Cheers,
Waldgeist

Lets get some details then - who is distributing it outside the US and what kind of distribution are we talking - limited, full? What countries are we talking about? I have hear some speculation on release dates for oversea - are these now set in stone? We want to know and there is a lot of quiet right now. I can not help it if you know and I do not.

[Crom]

Great review, CP. Nicely indepth. You mentioned something in it I meant to, and that was the costuming. So many of these pseudo S&S films feature actors with perfect teeth, Hollywood looks and costumes straight from the dry-cleaners without a wrinkle or speck of dirt. The costumes in SK were indeed worn, functional and real. It's the attention to detail like that which help make this film as good as it is.

[Waldgeist]

Strom, on 26 September 2009 - 05:41 PM, said:

Waldgeist, on 26 September 2009 - 11:30 AM, said:

Strom, on 26 September 2009 - 04:45 PM, said:

Nice review CP - one must assume the money guys who forced the origin did so with the understanding that it would be necessary to sell the movie. Without a distributor yet - and having such a difficult time securing one for all these months - the explanation and necessity of the origin story really has no merit.

"No distributor" is only correct for the US. The rest of the world has already signed on, so the merit of following the suggestions of the people with the money already paid off, because even though the US companies always see their domestic market as the most important one, there is a lot of money to be made outside of the US. (good example Golden Compass scored 70 Million in the US but over 300 Million in the Rest of the World)

Cheers,
Waldgeist

Lets get some details then - who is distributing it outside the US and what kind of distribution are we talking - limited, full? What countries are we talking about? I have hear some speculation on release dates for oversea - are these now set in stone? We want to know and there is a lot of quiet right now. I can not help it if you know and I do not.

I am just quoting what Michael and Paul have said more than once on the issue. All european markets are covered. It's up to the distributors when they will release the film, on which scale, when they go public with it etc.. but you can be pretty sure, that Samuel Hadida (and the other companies, people involved outside of Pauls company) would not have brought up the 40 Million Dollars to produce the film, if they would not have agreed with the approach to the film. So the descision to make an origin story and the one whe are seeing now was i guess heavily motivated not only by future distributors, but more than anything by the people who throw the money into the deal.

Cheers,
Waldgeist

This post has been edited by Waldgeist: 26 September 2009 - 05:25 PM

[Strom]

Thanks for the info Waldgeist.

[crossplain pilgrim]

All right, had my breakfast and feel ready to tackle a few questions that have been a source of debate about the film. Of course, now we really are in the arena of personal opinion, so take my remarks in that spirit. Those of you who have read very little about the "Solomon Kane" film might consider that some of the following remarks contain SPOILERS! I will endeavor to keep them at a minimum.

1. The crucifixion scene has already been described as "ridiculous" by Mr. Disgusting. Now, one can quibble why Bassett uses this particular scene in the film (to reinforce Kane's spiritual journey, perhaps?), but his escape from the cross is not impossible. The spikes driven into Kane's hands do not (conveniently) have heads on them. To pull his hands through them may be painful, but not physically impossible. (Bassett is careful to illustrate that after this feat, Kane is in no shape to jump up and enter into battle.) In addition, Kane calls on God for aid prior to making the effort to free himself. This is, by the way, a film in which supernatural forces, both good and evil, clearly exist and do intercede in the events of the film. If a viewer finds this idea without credibility, they should forget about sword and sorcery films and stick to straight adventure. I am always amused at those reviewers who are routinely comfortable with the idea that there are devils, vampires, demons, and other dark forces that interfere in the lives of human beings, but the idea of an intervention on the part of a benign God is out of the question. Whether Kane's call for heavenly intervention is answered, or he simply surges with Howardian determination at that particular moment (a motivation is provided) is left to the imagination of the viewer.

2. The "fire monster" near the end of the film has been often pointed out as a rip-off of the flaming creature in "Lord of the Rings." It may be in the same ball park, but it is rendered with a substantially different size and look. It does not brandish a whip of flames. In fact, the Kane monster tends to smolder internally rather than burn. It is from hell, after all. If we are going to quibble that some screen monster resembles others film creatures, we would be opening a can of worms to which there is no bottom. It seems to me the monster was an effort to end the film with a hellish creature that appears to seal Kane's doom, and thus generate a greater tension than just one more swordfight. Kane's response to the creature is totally in keeping with the way his character has evolved. Again, Mr. Disgusting finds it ridiculous that there is a divine or supernatural intervention in these final events. But earlier in the film, a devout character in the film has promised Kane he can expect such intervention if he performs a certain heroic deed. Kane performs it and is granted his redemption. I can only hope that Mr. Disgusting is granted his own when the time comes.

3. Too many events in the film seem familiar and reminiscent of other Sword and Sorcery films. I don't know how anyone with a reasonable knowledge of film history can make this complaint with a straight face. Sure there are some things in Kane that are Mr. Bassett's re-working of elements that other films have featured. Who hasn't? Our beloved REH re-channeled H.P. Lovecraft elements into a few of his horror stories. Did that make the stories any less entertaining? Did anyone complain that Spielberg's Indiana Jones films were compilations of scenes from a score of old Saturday afternoon serials? Are we going to condemn "Lord of the Rings" because the principle characters go on a quest to confront an evil force in a fortress far way? I seem to recall "Conan the Destroyer" had a similar plot. Except "CtB" didn't do it with the immeasurably superior story subtext and style of LotR. "Pale Rider" has been mentioned a few times around here as an example of a film whose main character's origins were not telegraphed at the beginning of the film. It's a fine film, but are we going to condemn it because two-thirds of the scenes in it were lifted almost intact from "Shane?" The old "It's been done before" is an argument that is often thrown up when a reviewer doesn't like a film, but one that is conveniently forgotten when a reviewer so chooses. It's a bogus argument. Everything has been done before. It's the new spin and freshness that the film maker adds to familiar elements that make all the difference.

4. This is not REH's Solomon Kane. The main ammunition for this complaint is the origin story. It is also pointed out that there are times in the film when Kane does not act with the manly vigor and almost foolhardy directness of REH's Kane. All true. There is a whiff of "Hamlet" in Kane's character, at least in the beginning. But Bassett's take on the character does have support in Howard's writing. Many of us can offer other passages that support our belief that Kane was always a Puritan and never wavered in his determination and faith. But we can't prove it. We can only infer. We can only offer those lines in the stories that support our belief. Howard, unfortunately, never gave us an irrefutable account of Kane's early life. Bassett relied on those elements in "Blue Flame of Vengence" that best supported his idea for an origin story. It isn't mine. It isn't yours. It never will be. But it is not totally out of left field. Kane does, for a time in the film, cling to his pacifism in hope of redemption. As events progress we see a gradual change in Kane as he moves irrevocably toward a personality that is very, very close to REH's (and my) Kane. At the end of the film, Kane has reached a point where he is dressed like Kane, acting like Kane, and speaking of the need to combat the dark forces in the world as a faithful champion of God's will. That is close enough for me and I devoutly hope that this film will succeed well enough that I may get the chance to see Solomon Kane unsheathe his sword once again.

[crossplain pilgrim]

This is a Kane review by John Stong on a site named Sight on Sound. It is one of the very best reviews I have read. This guy seems like a sword brother. I share his sense of loss for the increasing lack of classic adventure films. He blames Blockbuster's treatment of such films. So do I. But I also blame the societal trend to move a way from remembering past adventures, much less celebrating them in film. It is no accident that Warners has decided to change "Captain Blood," a classic 17th Century pirate adventure, into a sci-fi space epic. There is a profound belief, probably backed up by statistics, that today's young audiences prefer contemporary action films. They learned little history in school and are therefore uncomfortable with seeing it on the big screen. The concept of a 16th Century code of honor that demands revenge or sacrifice is utterly alien to them. They can't connect. That is why a film like "Solomon Kane" is something of a miracle. Here is the link.

Sight on Sound

[crossplain pilgrim]

Here's another review along the lines of "they don't make 'em like this one anymore." What I thought was cool was the reviewer's last sentence.

"The morning after the screening, I went and picked up some Robert E. Howard books, which I hope will help me prolong the pleasure I got from Michael J. Bassett’s film. As a new, medium-budget hack-and-slash film with no stars, it’s a shame that it is for the moment, a unique pleasure. "

I personally believe the "Solomon Kane" film could broaden the public awareness of REH in a very positive way. Here is the link.


Movies on Line

[tbrittreid]

crossplain pilgrim, on 26 September 2009 - 02:16 PM, said:

This is a Kane review by John Stong on a site named Sight on Sound. It is one of the very best reviews I have read. This guy seems like a sword brother. I share his sense of loss for the increasing lack of classic adventure films. He blames Blockbuster's treatment of such films. So do I. But I also blame the societal trend to move a way from remembering past adventures, much less celebrating them in film. It is no accident that Warners has decided to change "Captain Blood," a classic 17th Century pirate adventure, into a sci-fi space epic. There is a profound belief, probably backed up by statistics, that today's young audiences prefer contemporary action films. They learned little history in school and are therefore uncomfortable with seeing it on the big screen. The concept of a 16th Century code of honor that demands revenge or sacrifice is utterly alien to them. They can't connect. That is why a film like "Solomon Kane" is something of a miracle. Here is the link.

Sight on Sound

Sorry, but that link does not work. Noticing that the displayed link reads "Sight on Sound" while the actual web address reads, "soundonsight," I tried the obvious reversal, but you can see the equally ineffective results below:

Sight on Sound

What did happen?

[Grimr]

Hey, Pilgrim, I think we're all glad you had such a great time. And I'm certainly a little envious...

But as well as having a blast, you've returned from seeing the movie as a veritable Kane leviathan!
Thanks for a cornucopia of views, opinions and info on the film - and written in your own inimitably erudite way. You put many of the so called professional reviewers to shame.

I have to say that I place great store in our opinion, and feel that my positivity over the film has been vindicated somewhat. I just need to see the bloody thing, now!!

[Crom]

tbrittreid, on 26 September 2009 - 05:47 PM, said:

Sorry, but that link does not work. Noticing that the displayed link reads "Sight on Sound" while the actual web address reads, "soundonsight," I tried the obvious reversal, but you can see the equally ineffective results below:

Sight on Sound

What did happen?

I had no trouble accessing the site earlier to read the review, though at the moment it is indeed down. Maybe they're having server problems.

[Waldgeist]

Catch the vibe from the audience at TIFF from this little feedback video - http://www.facebook....v=1209549689148

[Waldgeist]

And here we have a very in depth video interview of Harry Knowles with Michael J. Bassett after Fantastic Fest - http://www.vimeo.com/6754532

[crossplain pilgrim]

Crom said:

tbrittreid, on 26 September 2009 - 05:47 PM, said:

Sorry, but that link does not work. Noticing that the displayed link reads "Sight on Sound" while the actual web address reads, "soundonsight," I tried the obvious reversal, but you can see the equally ineffective results below:

Sight on Sound

What did happen?

I had no trouble accessing the site earlier to read the review, though at the moment it is indeed down. Maybe they're having server problems.

Hey, CJ! Every now and then one of the major political sites like Instapundit or Huffington Post will link to some little blogger's site and the weight of traffic crashes it. Do you think my plug was so influential that the torrent of hits it engendered brought it down? All three of them?

[crossplain pilgrim]

Waldgeist, on 27 September 2009 - 01:48 AM, said:

Catch the vibe from the audience at TIFF from this little feedback video - http://www.facebook....v=1209549689148

Neat video, Waldgeist! As always, you are the man! That last shot of Michael Bassett where he delights in the fan's kind words is pure Bassett. He's so darn enthusiastic and really a fan himself. Good guy.