Pages

Wednesday 16 June 2010

Solomon Kane: Viciously Kaned …


You know, I think — think, mind — that Movie Night Adrian and I have seen an …


Hmmm …

An interesting movie, tonight …

Possibly …

You see, tonight we managed to catch the Michæl J. Bassett directed Solomon Kane, with James Purefoy in the title role of R. E. Howard’s pulp character.

A character that was — from what I can see — never exactly filled in, by Howard, himself.

Hmmm …

The film sees Kane returning to England, after having his soul condemned to Hell in its opening scenes, by the Devil’s Reaper.

An event that find’s him determined to try to redeem himself, when he get’s back to England …

~≈®≈~

Now, I’ve got to confess Solomon Kane isn’t the most stunning of films.

It’s worth watching, don’t get me wrong: nicely scripted and acted, wonderfully shot, competently directed and very atmospheric.

But I’m not convinced that Solomon Kane is anything other an atmospheric one-night-stand.

Nice, for an evening.

But, long term … ?

Well …

You tell me.

~≈®≈~

Solomon Kane
★★☆☆

3 comments:

  1. Soloman Kane, eh? Not sure if it has aired over here. Too bad. Anything with James Purefoy in it has to be a winner, in my opinion. For that matter, I don't really care about the rest of the cast, the writing, direction, production, or anything else as long as James Purefoy is in it.

    But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A character that was — from what I can see — never exactly filled in, by Howard, himself.

    If you mean Howard never wrote much of his background, that was undoubtedly intentional. Howard wrote about other characters' pasts without problems, even origin stories: leaving Kane's origins unknown is part of his mystique. Like The Man With No Name from the "Dollars" trilogy.

    Aside from that, Howard provided plenty of characterization for Kane. He undergoes a character arc over the course of the stories, he's complex and conflicted, he's interesting. I don't know why Bassett felt it was necessary to give him an origin story, but hey, I'm just a Howard nut.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmmm …

    Interesting to know, Taranaich: I’ve actually just had a quick look at your blog, and came away with one at least one question: is there a currently extant Solomon Kane collection, along the lines of the Conan one put out a few years ago … ?

    ReplyDelete

I love it when someone comments. But, having had anonymous comments I feel may be libellous, actionable or just plain offensive, over the years?

I’d appreciate you* leaving your name — with a link to your website or social-media profile†, for preference — before you post a comment.

Should you choose to use a pseudonym/name, I’d appreciate it if that name were to be polite and inoffensive. I’d rather you kept it clean, and relatively grown up. Comments left with a pseudonym will be posted at my discretion: I really prefer a link.

Contentious, actionable or abusive posts left anonymously will not be posted. Nor will comments using offensive pseudonyms or language, or that are abusive of other commenters.

Thank you.

*   I know many value their online privacy. I respect that. But hope you respect my wish to see who’s commenting on my blog: and my wish for you to introduce your self to me, and to your fellow commentors.

†   Your Facebook, X/Twitter, Blogger, Instagram, TikTok or LinkedIn profile are acceptable. I also like seeing folks webpages.