Solomon Kane Movie Needs More Solomon Kane
The sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century Puritan adventurer Solomon Kane is my favorite of Robert E. Howard’s serial characters: a fascinating mixture of obsession, religion, righteousness, history, and dark fantasy awesomeness. However, it’s the character I love, not necessarily the stories in which he appeared. With the exception of “Wings in the Night,” the Solomon Kane stories are mid-range pieces in Howard’s canon, not at the consistent level he delivered later with Conan, King Kull, or many of his one-shots. Solomon Kane appeared early in Howard’s short professional pulp career, with the first published story in the August 1928 issue of Weird Tales. Perhaps if Howard stayed longer with the Puritan hero while his storytelling skills increased, he might have equaled the Conan series in quality.
But a great character is always an excellent starting point to make a great movie, and in concept a Solomon Kane film should be an easy third-base hit for any talented filmmaker. The 2009 British-French-Czech Solomon Kane, which finally received its limited U.S. theatrical release today (also on VOD if you can’t find a local theater), showed many hints of not only getting on third, but possibly stealing home. Tonally, it captures the 1930s version of Weird Tales. The violence is graphic and bloody without falling into the slapstick idiocy of Marcus Nispel’s Conan the Barbarian. The production design is top-tier for a mid-budget movie and feels saturated with the benighted European dreariness of Kane stories such as “Skulls in the Stars” and “Rattle of Bones.”
What the movie does not have: Solomon Kane. This tends to undermine most of the right steps the filmmakers take, as you might imagine.
It makes no difference if audiences know the first thing about the character of Kane or even know the name Robert E. Howard. The film’s failure to exploit what makes Solomon Kane so fascinating spills over into the story and pacing. Solomon Kane is an origin tale that stretches out for a hundred minutes — an origin for a character who doesn’t even need an origin. As James Purefoy’s voiceover at last declares Solomon Kane’s intentions to battle evil wherever it lies, and the hero leaps onto his horse decked with the swirling black coat and the wide-brimmed slouch hat, the audience will be primed to see this strange avenger work his bloody craft. But then the director’s name appears and the end credits start. Sorry folks, movie is over.
Okay, let’s roll back the film to the beginning. An impressive opening sequence has a British privateer rapscallion lead his crew into an Ottoman fortress in North Africa, shooting and cutting his way through the Turkish defenders toward his goal. With the inclusion of horrific mirror-monsters and eye-popping designs, the scene gets the film’s blood pumping from the start. And then, you realize that the pirate leader is Solomon Kane (if you didn’t already recognize actor James Purefoy), and this sequence serves to set up the character as a man whose “soul is damned!” (A phrase that gets repeated a few too many times throughout the movie.) Suddenly, the entire film simply feels wrong, and worse, ordinary.
For some famous characters, the origin is a full journey, the complete story. But some heroes don’t require them, and trying to fashion one for them only delays from getting to what people really want to see them do. Sherlock Holmes does not need an origin story. Philip Marlowe does not need an origin story. James Bond does not need an origin story. And… Solomon Kane does not need an origin story.
Robert E. Howard’s stories and poems only provide tantalizing hints about Solomon Kane’s background and his intersection with historical events. He didn’t have an “origin,” and he certainly didn’t have the Devil’s Reaper tell him he was bound for Hell, forcing him to fight to regain his soul. Much of the character’s power comes from his “inscrutable goodness,” a man who fights for God as if he were the Devil. The script for Solomon Kane robs Kane of his mystery during the first five minutes, making just another “dark hero” figure like too many on the theater screens today. It’s Solomon Kane confused with Elric.
However, the movie might have overcome this problem if it got Kane to his puritanism and fanaticism faster. But it keeps dragging its feet, stuck in building the character’s motivations until it’s too late to use the character. Flashbacks to Kane’s boyhood start presenting a second layer of an origin story, which is unnecessary except to loop back in the finale to explain the villains in an unsatisfactory fashion. Returning to the present, Kane in this story isn’t a Puritan at all, he’s only Puritan-adjacent. After getting expelled from a monastery and surviving a robbing, Kane takes shelter with a traveling Puritan family for a spell (led by the late Pete Postlethwaite, who could have made a superb Solomon Kane a decade ago). Only after the family gets wiped out of the picture, with pretty daughter Meredith (Rachel Hurd-Wood) the sole survivor, does Kane then takes up the Puritan’s clothing and hat. I call “not a Puritan,” and therefore “not Solomon Kane.”
But this is still not the end of the origin story. Kane goes on a quest to rescue the kidnapped girl because it will restore his soul (not sure why, but if Pete Postlethwaite says so…), but he makes little headway and eventually forms a team to attack the castle of the evil sorcerer Malachi (Jason Flemyng), frustratingly giving the audience a character grasping to find what he’s about, and only figuring it out in the final moments. As I said, you don’t need to know Robert E. Howard’s character to find this sputtering around in neutral annoying.
By the way, no juju stick. I have no idea why the filmmakers opted to keep the shaman N’Longa out of the story. Since the plot takes Kane to Africa anyway, it seems wasteful to abandon this key part of Solomon Kane’s mythology.
It’s never clear exactly what evil Kane is facing. Wicked sorcerer Malachi remains a nobody, even when tied clumsily into Kane’s past, and his enslaved legions and their “Leatherface” captain called the Masked Rider remain a nebulous threat almost to the very end, when a pretty damn cool giant iron-and-fire monster faces off with the hero and upstages everyone.
All this feels extra disappointing because director Michael J. Bassett clearly possesses the skill set to create a great Robert E. Howard adaptation. The action doesn’t work on a story level, but the execution is superb, with the right amount of ferocious bloodletting. Bassett stages a few interesting scenes with a good eye for visuals, including an apparently obligatory nod to “Conan gets crucified” from “A Witch Shall Be Born.” The most impressive scene is a gruesome horror bit in an abandoned church that feels the most like a Weird Tales story than anything else on screen. The whole movie is filled with bleak, foggy, and craggy images that create a melding of classic Hammer Horror with modern Gothic filmmaking. I can’t say enough about the superior production design, from a Moorish fortress to a medieval Devonshire castle. It’s ideal for Solomon Kane. James Purefoy gives a tortured and glowering performance as well, and definitely has the potential to nail the character.
Yet little of this matters with a story and character that never get in motion. The prologue of the movie should have introduced the villain of the piece who loses his soul, then have Kane appear full-blown afterwards, as he does in Howard’s stories, and send him slashing through evil with his beautifully harsh interpretation of “good.” Although not the best of Howard’s Solomon Kane stories, “Red Shadows” offers an ideal structure for a feature-length movie, and could have fit with the basic story outlined in this movie.
While I watched Solomon Kane and tried to come to grips with why it wasn’t working for me despite all its visual accuracy and filmmaking talent on display, I flashed back to my review of Dredd from last week. That movie knew its tough-guy hero required no backstory, and so provided a secondary character to help create an arc. It worked there, and this is exactly what Solomon Kane needs: a main character who is archetypal and mysterious with a strong supporting character to broaden the story for a ninety-minute-plus running time. A good model within Robert E. Howard’s work is the Conan story “Beyond the Black River,” where the young settler Balthus becomes co-hero of the story with Conan. Rachel Hurd-Wood should’ve played that character for Kane, but she gets relegated to sitting in a cage screaming most of the time as yet another boring damsel-in-distress. Kane’s other allies don’t materialize until far later in the movie, after the damage has been done.
I hope Bassett gets to mount his sequel — although the movie’s long-delayed U.S. release instills no confidence this will happen — because a second movie can simply ignore all this origin material and send Kane off on his bloody way, hopefully to Africa to battle winged monsters. The potential for greatness is all here, and that makes Solomon Kane’s failure to give either the title character or an exciting story to Howard fans or general moviegoers feel bitter indeed.
Ryan Harvey is a veteran blogger for Black Gate and an award-winning science-fiction and fantasy author. He received the Writers of the Future Award in 2011 for his short story “An Acolyte of Black Spires,” and has two stories forthcoming in Black Gate, as well as a currently available e-book in the same setting. He also knows Godzilla personally. You can keep up with him at his website, www.RyanHarveyWriter.com, and follow him on Twitter.
Ryan: I was disappointed too. The visuals were slick and inventive, but the story just kept falling into PURE CHEESE. Whenever it was trying to be dramatic, it seemed to be just trying too damn hard. The voice-overs, the looking up at the sky and speaking a vow to god (when you should be fighting for your life), and other various moments just ruined the movie for me. There was simply too much explicit “Look how dramatic and serious this guy is!” going on. And the final confrontation seemed so quickly resolved it was distracting and annoying. Not to mention that the sorcerer who is the villain NEVER SHOWS UP UNTIL THE FINAL SCENE. There is simply ZERO character development of Kane’s main enemy. It reminded me (as too many films do these days) of a video game where you finally get to the last “level” and see the ultimate threat. This was disturbing because the sets were brilliant, the cinematography was superb, the mood was great…it was just the script that turned it all into a drama that only a 12-year-old would buy into. Too bad…they could have skipped the cheese and it would have been a tastier, leaner meal. HOWEVER, even with the high “cheese factor,” it was still three times better than Nispel’s CONAN. Ugh.
Excellent review, Ryan.
Trenchant points nailed from your shout-out to Wings in the Night to your concise explanation of why the attempt to define Kane through a labored origin story actually surgically removed Kane from his own movie.
Really the single best review of this film I’ve read, and one of your best posts ever, IMHO.
I’m with you on most of this, Ryan, but I feel compelled to comment:
“With the exception of “Wings in the Night,” the Solomon Kane stories are mid-range pieces in Howard’s canon, not at the consistent level he delivered later with Conan, King Kull, or many of his one-shots.”
I think “Red Shadows” and “The Footfalls Within” are absolutely deserving of consideration among Howard’s greater range, with “Hills of the Dead” and “Skulls in the Stars” also worthy tales, to say nothing of the poems, which are top-notch. I’ll concede “The Moon of Skulls” is very much a Haggard pastiche, and the other stories are probably mid-range, but I will champion “Red Shadows” and “The Footfalls Within” with “Wings in the Night” alongside the best Conan and Kulls.
I used to agree with you, Al, especially on “The Footfalls Within,” which I simply loved the first time I read it. But my later readings of the Kane stories, especially when taken all together, have made me see the opus differently, and although I still enjoy most of them, and get great pleasure from “Skulls in the Stars” (it was the first SK piece I read) and “The Footfalls Within,” they simply don’t strike me with the force of my favorite Conan and Kull stories. “Wings in the Night” still does it for me, however.
For this I typed a furious, foaming long rant… Then I decided I’d look like a flooder/troll and wiped it. I’m holding back my rage, my taste for pain. I’d thought I’d been through it seeing the modern “Star Trek” abortion of Conan, but somehow this makes me very mad.
I’m just very angry at the current “Buy up/use public domain recognized properties, fill them with gloss, go to great lengths to make the story vapid and paper thin, puke them on the public” In abstract I should perhaps be greatful they didn’t butcher El Borak or Bran Mak Morn…
Like, let’s see…
Bran Mak Morn meets Tinkerbell in “Creatures of the Earth”…
They give it to Disney so the brutal Roman governor is driven simply crazy with the pixies magic and song and dance and so he halts the planned execution of the captive Pict and Bran finds a gf in the plain looking swamp wise woman who turns into a beautiful princess when he says he loves her and revenge is bad….
Since Great Cthulhu would vomit at that, I won’t let myself speculate on how they’d RUIN “Three Bladed Doom” even though it’d be the perfect movie to make in these times. East vs west but not over the top like 300 or insane the stupid it burns offensive like “innocence of—-”
But I’m truly marvelled at how for all the money, acting, work they put into these things how they don’t even take a step back and imagine it as a movie in their heads to be a good story. Matter of fact, I truly believe there’s some evil force in mass media that is determined that anyone with any “Bardic” ancestry will NOT get a movie made, any major record album, ever be more than a bit actor. Since it’s more or less 5 companies that more or less cooperate rather than competing they don’t need to have talent that dictates it’s own paycheck, save a few only propped up actors they let pretend they are then toss them at a heartbeat.
Really, imagine how possible, how easy and with modern CG how affordable it’d be to do Marvel’s “The Sword of Solomon Kane” or their “Kull the Conqueror” run… Imagine the werewolf story, the barbary coast pirate story, or in Kull the Goblin moon episode or the one with the plague and the Charnel pit monster… Even those comic books would be a better story than what was put on the screen.
Well, there’s not much I can do. And REH’s stories will likely NOT see any future screen work again thanks to this. Another 20 or so years of progress perhaps we’ll be able to casually dictate movies into computers, and perhaps some good “Home adaptations” will be made.
I am planning a pulp character that’s inspired by, like but also very unlike Solomon Kane. Perhaps in a year I’ll unleash the story in my magazine.
I’m going to be the voice of contradiction. . .I loved Solomon Kane, and I look forward to forking over some of my hard-won hay to own a proper Region 1 DVD of it.
Now, the caveats:
1.) I have read the Solomon Kane tales, and I’ll freely admit that the character in this movie isn’t a very faithful rendition.
2.) I appreciated this movie in much the same way I appreciate Hugh Jackman’s Van Helsing. Which is to same, I was sold from the moment when Solomon catches a flaming hell-sword between his sword and dagger and roars “YOU CANNOT HAVE MY SOUL.”
Overall, I thought it was about the right mix of cheese and grimdark.
[…] Solomon Kane Movie Needs More Solomon Kane […]