|
Post by Jason Aiken on Feb 8, 2019 16:55:56 GMT -5
I watched Solomon Kane several years before I got into watching the Hammer films a few years back. After watching a ton of those, I think I can say that Solomon Kane is the most visually splendid Hammer Film ever made Which is a compliment. I can't stand that they made this a prequel/origin tale, but it's not that bad. I don't like the pirate stuff, but everything in England is actually pretty solid and watchable. Even the odd family storyline they put in there.
|
|
|
Post by charleshelm on Feb 8, 2019 21:52:26 GMT -5
I like the movie. There are some things they did to the character I did not like, and to the story, but no where near what was done to John Carter (pacifist? Helium will sacrifice its women to avoid war? no way).
Kane should not have started out bad, and should never have come down from a cross, but the person he ended up being was not bad, and I generally liked the atmosphere and casting. I will certainly watch it again, and recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 9, 2019 2:40:56 GMT -5
Interesting thing is with barely any marketing push, this film made 2/3 as much as the 2011 Conan film overseas (can't compare US domestic because I think SK was in the theaters for what, 3 days a few years after it came out?) Had they waited a few years, it could have been done as a streaming series or film. Little did they know. Had it been released globally around the same time, perhaps it may have done a lot better. I can't even remember SK being released here in Australia, but I was aware of the film before the DVD release here in around 2010. The annoying part is that I think I read somewhere that Purefoy had remarked that if it did well, that there would have been a sequel, and they wanted to have three films, damn.
I spoke to some blokes at work about the movie the other day after I re-watched it and they all were well aware of the film, and of those that had seen it, they definitely did enjoy it.
It is sad to think that a movie like this had the potential to perhaps do a reasonable gross at cinemas for its' genre, had there been a more successful marketing push. We could have had our two sequels by now.
Oh well dreams are free.
|
|
|
Post by KiramidHead on Feb 23, 2019 23:00:31 GMT -5
I remember being so eager to see this that I watched it on YouTube, split into four parts with what looked like Tamil subtitles. It's not the worst film, and easily beats both Kull the Conqueror and Conan 2011 for me, but it still isn't the ideal Kane film. And of course any Africa set sequel that would potentially be closer to the mark was scuttled by the distribution issues.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on May 19, 2019 6:34:39 GMT -5
It still amazes me how hard I had to work to see the thing. It never hit theatres near me, as far as I can tell. And when I looked for a DVD version all I found for the longest time were non-Region-1 so that I couldn't play it on my DVD machine. Finally I found a copy for sale, from a company that seemed really shady and I nearly didn't want to give them my credit info.
|
|
|
Post by themirrorthief on May 19, 2019 22:15:11 GMT -5
I salute the effort they made...at least it was a very quality production with some decent Kane influences...would love a sequel and I think it will come eventually from somewhere...the character is simply to present day Hollywood ready. Kane was John Wick long before John Wick
|
|
|
Post by KiramidHead on Dec 28, 2019 16:37:27 GMT -5
I gave Bassett's script a read, and it has some small differences that are better than what's in the movie.
-There's a bit more context given to the opening. Kane is specified to be a privateer, and is supposed to be rescuing prisoners, but goes off book because he heard about the treasure in the throne room.
-There's a bit more action set between the attack on the Crowthorns and the church scene, where Kane fights some raiders in and around a stone circle. This is where he first learns about the raiders being possessed by demons, a detail that's only hinted at the film, when the demon within one makes itself known.
-There's a small subplot about Meredith escaping by hiding in a pile of dead bodies, before getting recaptured later on. This makes the scene where the raider tells Kane that Meredith is dead feel a little less random.
-The crucifixion scene actually has a point on the page, as it leave Kane with "one foot in the realm of the dead." This is what gives him that controversial ability to spot the demons within people. There's also a nice visual where Kane gets a glimpse of Hell as the cross is lifted up. This probably all got dumped for budget reasons.
-Malachi's activities being part of a tangled, convoluted chess game to lure Kane out and snag his soul for Satan isn't a thing here, and Kane's father didn't sell his soul by proxy, either. Instead, Malachi basically says "hey, since you're here, and my pal Satan wants your soul, I'm gonna give it to him!"
-The giant lava demon tries to take Kane, but dissolves into light when it does so, signifying that Kane has redeemed himself and is no longer the devil's to have.
-The dialogue in general tends to be a bit better, and the ending narration is instead a fully written out conversation between Kane and Meredith.
|
|
|
Post by moonlightshadow on Jan 2, 2020 17:43:46 GMT -5
Interesting, KiramidHead. It seems the movie would have been slightly better had they stuck closer to that draft of the script.
However, I watched the movie again recently and I liked it less than when it was new. It's not a BAD movie like "Kull the Conqueror" and "Red Sonja", it's an average medium-budget s&s flick but it hasn't much to do with REH. The movie's Solomon Kane feels like a totally different character from Howard's Kane and the mood of the movie is all wrong. As others have observed the movie feels more like a Michael Moorcock adaptation than a Howard adaptation though I can't quite put my finger on it why that is the case. The story isn't that interesting and the action scenes are decent but not that exciting either. Also I never understood why Kane needs an "origin story". I mean, he's not like Spider-Man or Swamp Thing, he's just a puritan who walks the earth and fights evil whenever he encouters it. Who cares why he does it? Certainly REH didn't.
I think one of the best things about all of Howard's heroes is that they suddenly walk into a story and the reader doesn't really know where they come from. That mystique makes them so much cooler than your average super-hero. But of course Hollywood has never understood what made Robert E. Howard such a great writer.
To me it's incomprehensible that there has only been one single screen-adaptation of an actual REH story so far, "Pigeons from Hell".
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Jan 2, 2020 20:01:21 GMT -5
As others have observed the movie feels more like a Michael Moorcock adaptation than a Howard adaptation though I can't quite put my finger on it why that is the case. In terms of theme I can understand why people make this observation. Thematically it does feel closer to Moorcock than REH. My memory may be vague but I believe MJB originally wanted to do something much closer to REH but the studio execs wanted an origin story.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Jan 3, 2020 8:34:54 GMT -5
As others have observed the movie feels more like a Michael Moorcock adaptation than a Howard adaptation though I can't quite put my finger on it why that is the case. In terms of theme I can understand why people make this observation. Thematically it does feel closer to Moorcock than REH. My memory may be vague but I believe MJB originally wanted to do something much closer to REH but the studio execs wanted an origin story. I seem to remember that being the case as well. Worked out great, didn't it? Interesting observation about it being closer to Moorcock, I'd have to watch it again to comment better but it does seem to be more of a Von Bek story than a Solomon Kane when you think about it. Also interesting that there really hasn't been a good adaptation of a Moorcock story either (no one seems to care for The Final Programme, for those who've even seen it.)
|
|
|
Post by terryallenuk on Jan 3, 2020 13:56:01 GMT -5
This is what Paul Berrow , one of the film's producers told me about the origin : "..i am afraid that distributors, US in particular found jumping straight into the character from the books difficult to accept. Thus the challenge was met head on and the origin yarn developed using the Poems as a springboard."
Sadly the US distributors didn't do much for the film in the US even then.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Jan 3, 2020 14:20:55 GMT -5
This is what Paul Berrow , one of the film's producers told me about the origin : "..i am afraid that distributors, US in particular found jumping straight into the character from the books difficult to accept. Thus the challenge was met head on and the origin yarn developed using the Poems as a springboard." Sadly the US distributors didn't do much for the film in the US even then. Could they have done worse just doing a Red Shadows adaptation and sprinkled things in along the way?
|
|
|
Post by themirrorthief on Jan 15, 2020 22:37:22 GMT -5
I thought it was decent back when I first watched it but I think they totally missed the mystic that Howard poured into the character...it could have been a lot better,at least for howard fans...just follow the Howard template occasionally filmmakers
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 11, 2020 5:40:13 GMT -5
I thought it was decent back when I first watched it but I think they totally missed the mystic that Howard poured into the character...it could have been a lot better,at least for howard fans...just follow the Howard template occasionally filmmakers I wonder if they (the producers) would have eventually introduced more of the Howardian themes and adaptions, had the movie been more successful at the box office. I agree with you Mr. Mirrortheif, that had they just had the balls to go with Howard's 'template', we could have seen a great movie that did do well, and would have spawned several sequels.
I guess it seems that the innovative producers who have the strength to follow their passions, can create a mainstream fandom that might secure the future of their beloved character in movies, TV, etc. The Witcher is really gathering momentum at the moment and is a prime example, and though the Netflix series is it's own adaption for today's society, that differs from the books and games, it's popularity shows that there is an audience that appreciates monster hunters, in a world filled with mystical and fantasy themes.
I can never understand movie makers that sprout that they love R.E.Howard's works, and are influenced by them, but then go and make a completely different movie. Perhaps one day they'll get it right and put their trust in the original material.
One day.
|
|
|
Post by deepermagic on Feb 11, 2020 10:22:19 GMT -5
I thought it was decent back when I first watched it but I think they totally missed the mystic that Howard poured into the character...it could have been a lot better,at least for howard fans...just follow the Howard template occasionally filmmakers I wonder if they (the producers) would have eventually introduced more of the Howardian themes and adaptions, had the movie been more successful at the box office. I agree with you Mr. Mirrortheif, that had they just had the balls to go with Howard's 'template', we could have seen a great movie that did do well, and would have spawned several sequels.
I guess it seems that the innovative producers who have the strength to follow their passions, can create a mainstream fandom that might secure the future of their beloved character in movies, TV, etc. The Witcher is really gathering momentum at the moment and is a prime example, and though the Netflix series is it's own adaption for today's society, that differs from the books and games, it's popularity shows that there is an audience that appreciates monster hunters, in a world filled with mystical and fantasy themes.
I can never understand movie makers that sprout that they love R.E.Howard's works, and are influenced by them, but then go and make a completely different movie. Perhaps one day they'll get it right and put their trust in the original material.
One day.
I feel like most of my favorite TV shows, the ones where I was blown away by the originality or the great writing/storytelling, either die a quick death or have a story to tell about how they went through hell just to get it on the air or to stay on the air. Typically after these shows are done with the cast and crew will reminisce on how they'd never worked with a better group of people/writers/etc and how they wish to do something like that again. It seems everyone, from directors to actors to viewers all desire the same thing, but the industry continues to muck it up. This is why every hero must have an origin story (even rebooted origin stories), probably because some nerd with a spreadsheet says origin stories are what the people want. And he's probably not often wrong. The problem (for original material to shine) is that studio execs want to make something that appeals to the broadest audience. Typically for something to really shine through, like a Howardian Kane or Conan, you have to have someone or some group with money care more about Howard than about money. That's a tough sell for anyone in Hollywood. (But it's also an argument in favor of someone like Schwarzenegger who seems to really want to advocate for, at least the Milius version of, Conan. That's a case that seems like passion over money.)
|
|