A plethora of reviews 2 - the actual Solomon Kane review

So, Solomon Kane. Dour puritan, avatar of holy justice, protector of the weak...

...And evil pirate. Wait, what?

'Solomon Kane' is the first of a planned (well, hoped for) trilogy of films bringing Robert E. Howard's classic character to life. Problem is, the actual material is very limited. Howard only wrote 9 stories about Kane, augmented by some fragments and a few poems. The stories themselves are mostly very short, and rarely cover more than a pretty standard monster hunt. Howard never elaborated on Kane's life or motivations. So this is an Origins film. And oh boy did it suffer for it. OK, no, that's not fair. It's an OK film. It's even pretty cool in places, and there are shots of James Purefoy as Kane that I am going to print out and stick all over the walls in my room of crazy (not just the shirtless ones either), but it isn't Solomon Kane for me. It's a really interesting character, but one of the reasons Howard never gave him a backstory (I assume) is because Kane is a goddamn force of nature. He's someone who doesn't feel emotions other than righteous anger, guilt and pity. The only experiences from his past he carries in his heart are the ones that brought him to the brink (he was enslaved by Arabs and whipped, he was held in the cells of the Inquisition, etc.) I don't want to imagine Kane getting bratty as a small boy and storming out of his father's house.

But on the other hand, this is an exploration of the man rather than the legend, and I imagine a film in which he just kicks demonic ass would become a bit monotonal after a while. This is Solomon Kane at his weakest, in the fine old tradition of knocking 'em low so they can come back fighting. James Purefoy is brilliant as Kane, really throwing himself into the character. He seems more comfortable with the subtle, tormented Kane on the path of peace than the caricature of callous evil at the beginning, but that may just be that the character arc from bratty kid to ruthless pirate is explored in far less depth than the journey from damnation to redemption. Nevertheless, when Kane fully becomes the solemn soldier of God, Purefoy brings a suprising amount of depth to the silent, purposeful path he carves through his enemies. There are some truly crowning moments of pure awesome, as well, though there are many more opportunities that are not taken up. It's a shame, because the peace-loving Kane is kind of pathetic (with no real motivator for his change of heart other than fear) but the transformation into vengeful warrior of God is truly epic. When he flips out and starts killing people, you can see the fear in the eyes of the friendly Puritan family he took up with. Yeah, that guy's been sleeping next to you and hanging out with your teenage daughter. (But, honestly, you didn't get that he was dangerous from the horrific homemade tattoos and religious scarification all over his torso?) The fighting is pretty good as well. Kane kills with delicious efficiency, his martial prowess in line with that of the literary character. It's just a pity that the pivotal scene itself was so messy: the tension is all wrong and the script emphasises the morality play aspect of the film in an unsubtle and rather idiotic way. In terms of pacing, the least number of separate actions you need in a scene like that, the better. Throwing your arms up and crying out to the heavens is inappropriate when your friends are in danger and you're just going to go AWOL from your path of redemption anyway.

There is also an unpleasant slip back into uselessness when Kane believes the girl he needs to save is dead. Essentially, he goes hard off the deep end, but it seems strange given our limited exploration of his pre-revelation character that he would become so ineffectual. Perhaps he had to get ratarsed just so his old shipmates actually recognised him. Shortly after this, Kane becomes officially more awesome than Jesus.

The supporting cast is pretty stellar, in a muted kind of way: Max von Sydow, whose two scenes are sadly some of my least favourite, not because he is bad but because they are unnecessary, the ever reliable Pete Postlethwaite, Alice Krige, whose luminous beauty seems to defy age, Mackenzie Crook in a kind of good but superfluous side story and Jason Flemyng as Malachi, the big bad. Oh, and of course, that annoying girl from the version of 'Peter Pan' in which every girl's daddy issues about Jason Isaacs were fully explored. I'll stop being so flippant, but Rachel Hurd-Wood is very irritating. She is fine as a perfect, sweet object for the camera to linger upon as we reflect on her innocence and hidden depths, especially with that hair and those eyes, but the minute she opens her mouth I lose sympathy. Admittedly, some of that is probably the script, and she is pretty passable when she's in danger or shouting rather than saying awful 'independent seventeenth-century girl' lines. Also, I did like the bit where she was watching Kane wash his hands (which apparently had to be done shirtless, not that I'm complaining) - a typical innocent voyeur/bathing scene without the actual transformation into a love interest/sexual awakening. It helps that she looks about twelve. Sweetie, it's difficult not to have the hots for Solomon Kane, but he is so not interested.

Malachi is, I feel, a wasted opportunity. I read a review that said it was difficult for Jason Flemyng to be scary, but Malachi really could have had the creepy paedophile vibe if they had given him, you know, more than five minutes screentime after hyping him up the entire movie. His makeup was rocking, but it's a criminal waste of a fantastic actor.

The backstory was kind of lame, there was some massive special effects fail and a definite hint of they-did-not-do-the-research, but the filming is very pretty, and there were definitely times my swashbuckling little heart was stirred. Most importantly, the central character is well portrayed. He is better thought out than Howard's version, and it helps that the actor is so invested in the role. James Purefoy doesn't seem the geeky type, but if it had been anyone else, I probably would have assumed they were geeking out in the dream role from their childhood. It's really heartening to see how focused he is on getting the core of the character right and then fleshing out everything else. Also, I never thought a Somersetshire accent could be sexy, but there you go.

*sigh* This turned more into a randomly-accrued blow-by-blow account of my thoughts about the film, but really, it rather reflects my feelings about the film. In theory, I liked it. In theory, I liked it a lot. In actuality, there were so many niggling little things that I couldn't get into it. Like what the hell crazy version of seventeenth-century England were they living in where a possessed sorceror can take over a county or two and nobody noticed? Where was the monarch? It could have been one of the times of civil war, but it all seems a bit early for that. If we assume Kane was, say, 15 when he sailed with Sir Francis Drake, and that it was right at the end of Drake's life, and that Kane is around the same age as James Purefoy (46, I think), then it still only takes us up to 1627. So James I was in power and, honestly, Britain was reasonably peaceful. So it seems weird that the monarch just didn't give a damn about Devon and Somerset.

However, leather trousers, swashbuckling goodness and some pretty fine storytelling and atmosphere make this worth a watch, especially if you're a Solomon Kane fan. You just might have to adapt to the less awesome Kane, and wait for the next film to really love him. I suspect that if this didn't flunk completely at the box office and they somehow managed to get funding for a second one, and got the same people to do it (i.e. director, writer, main actor), the second film could be outstanding, at least for those of us who like our heroes dour, asexual and full of the righteous wrath of the Lord.

Disclaimer: I do not have a room of crazy. The only time I came close it was art dammit, not crazy.