"The second he plays martyr, God blasts through Solomon destroying all of the evil in the room. Yeah, seriously, that happened. I looked over at my friend who let loose one of the most hilarious happy smiles I’ve ever seen in my life. His face had confirmed my thoughts that what I had just witnessed was mind-blowing and shockingly bad. I don’t act like this when I’m in a theater, but I began laughing uncontrollably as I just couldn’t believe it. There was no way this was the end. So, wait, there’s no epic battle? No fight? No climax? It just… ends...because of God? "
So what he's saying is...it ends exactly like a Robert E. Howard Solomon Kane story?
It still sounds like crap, but this time reviewed by someone who likes crap...
Since when is Solomon Kane a Roman Catholic (I guess neither reviewer actually comes right out and says so, but it's sure implied that the film portrays him as such)? He's a Puritan.
Sounds like they dropped the ball on all manner of levels with this one. Not that I'm a huge fan of the original material, but the least they could do would be to get it right.
I just realized that not everyone will know what I mean by my criticism that Kane is portrayed as something other than a Puritan. The reviews seem to indicate that the (film) character's primary motivation is redemption. Puritans (which the book character is) are Calvinists. Calvinists believe in the doctrine of predestination of the soul. This means God has already decided before you're born where you're gonna spend eternity. Nothing you can do will change that, so no redemption is possible. You're either saved or not. Ergo, Solomon Kane does NOT seek redemption, he seeks to right wrongs, destroy evil, etc., for the sake of it. He probably believes he's doomed anyway.
Since when is Solomon Kane a Roman Catholic (I guess neither reviewer actually comes right out and says so, but it's sure implied that the film portrays him as such)? He's a Puritan.
I've been wondering about that too. Now, I haven't seen the film, so maybe the snippets I've seen online give a false impression, but it sure looks like Kane heads off to a monastery to atone for his sinful ways and that strikes me as utterly unlike the character from Howard's writing, who, as you say, was a Puritan, not a Catholic (or even an Anglican).
Yeah can't say I'm shocked to hear this either, a shame really, but no surprise. Though while I don't think it wasn't the reviewer's intention, the Uwe Boll comment is misleading, as Boll has nothing to do with this movie as far as I can tell.
There's been debate for years about whether Kane was, in fact, a Calvinist. The term "Puritan" was used as a blanket term in the 16th and 17th centuries to refer to anyone who was against the CoE and not a Papist. Kane's behavior in the stories is not consistent with puritan behavior, and there are a lot of "scholarly" articles that posit the term was an epithet rather than a literalism.
Solomon Kane is Robert E. Howard's other seminal character, just behind Conan in popularity among fans. People have been anticipating a Kane movie for many years, now (and there have been several aborted attempts to bring it to the screen). So as you can imagine, the flick is bound to create heated and polarized debate.
Oh Noooo, I wish they did a faithful movie recreation of Bram Stoker's Dracula, though I prefer the unfinished vampire piece written by Lord Byron himself.
I just saw Solomon Kane at Fantastic Fest and totally disagree with this review. Uwe Boll has nothing to do with the movie. Yes, Kane takes refuge in a religious community to avoid the Devil and live a life of peace - shockingly, Puritans had religious communities; they were a (large) offshoot of the Church of England. Furthermore Puritan doctrine, though believing in Calvinist predestination, strongly focused on controlling one's actions.
I don't mind someone not liking the movie, but please pick informed reasons...
"So what he's saying is...it ends exactly like a Robert E. Howard Solomon Kane story?"
Could you direct me to the Solomon Kane story where the Almighty blasts a beam of light through Solomon Kane's body like he was the Heart of Ahriman? 'Coz nothing I read even remotely resembles divine intervention on behalf of Jehovah, which was almost commendably inconclusive in the stories.
Uwe Boll. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteOh, my. Looks like I'll be saving my money by skipping this one.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. Herr Doktor Boll. I had not been informed. My sincere condolences.
ReplyDelete"The second he plays martyr, God blasts through Solomon destroying all of the evil in the room. Yeah, seriously, that happened. I looked over at my friend who let loose one of the most hilarious happy smiles I’ve ever seen in my life. His face had confirmed my thoughts that what I had just witnessed was mind-blowing and shockingly bad. I don’t act like this when I’m in a theater, but I began laughing uncontrollably as I just couldn’t believe it. There was no way this was the end. So, wait, there’s no epic battle? No fight? No climax? It just… ends...because of God? "
ReplyDeleteSo what he's saying is...it ends exactly like a Robert E. Howard Solomon Kane story?
Here's a different take on the flick from AICN:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41022
Here's a different take on the flick from AICN:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aintitcool.com/node/41022
It still sounds like crap, but this time reviewed by someone who likes crap...
Since when is Solomon Kane a Roman Catholic (I guess neither reviewer actually comes right out and says so, but it's sure implied that the film portrays him as such)? He's a Puritan.
Sounds like they dropped the ball on all manner of levels with this one. Not that I'm a huge fan of the original material, but the least they could do would be to get it right.
I just realized that not everyone will know what I mean by my criticism that Kane is portrayed as something other than a Puritan. The reviews seem to indicate that the (film) character's primary motivation is redemption. Puritans (which the book character is) are Calvinists. Calvinists believe in the doctrine of predestination of the soul. This means God has already decided before you're born where you're gonna spend eternity. Nothing you can do will change that, so no redemption is possible. You're either saved or not. Ergo, Solomon Kane does NOT seek redemption, he seeks to right wrongs, destroy evil, etc., for the sake of it. He probably believes he's doomed anyway.
ReplyDeleteSince when is Solomon Kane a Roman Catholic (I guess neither reviewer actually comes right out and says so, but it's sure implied that the film portrays him as such)? He's a Puritan.
ReplyDeleteI've been wondering about that too. Now, I haven't seen the film, so maybe the snippets I've seen online give a false impression, but it sure looks like Kane heads off to a monastery to atone for his sinful ways and that strikes me as utterly unlike the character from Howard's writing, who, as you say, was a Puritan, not a Catholic (or even an Anglican).
Yeah can't say I'm shocked to hear this either, a shame really, but no surprise.
ReplyDeleteThough while I don't think it wasn't the reviewer's intention, the Uwe Boll comment is misleading, as Boll has nothing to do with this movie as far as I can tell.
Why didn't they just adapt Wings in the Night and let the master's work speak for itself? Keee-crist.
ReplyDeleteThey could have made a better Solomon Kane movie on a smaller budget.
ReplyDeleteDrives me crazy when they say it instead of show it.
There's been debate for years about whether Kane was, in fact, a Calvinist. The term "Puritan" was used as a blanket term in the 16th and 17th centuries to refer to anyone who was against the CoE and not a Papist. Kane's behavior in the stories is not consistent with puritan behavior, and there are a lot of "scholarly" articles that posit the term was an epithet rather than a literalism.
ReplyDeleteCould someone fill me in, what's the big deal with this movie?
ReplyDeleteSolomon Kane is Robert E. Howard's other seminal character, just behind Conan in popularity among fans. People have been anticipating a Kane movie for many years, now (and there have been several aborted attempts to bring it to the screen). So as you can imagine, the flick is bound to create heated and polarized debate.
ReplyDeleteI just saw the trailer. I will pass on this movie. It looks like they gave the movie the same treatment they gave the movie "Van Helsing".
ReplyDeleteOh Noooo,
ReplyDeleteI wish they did a faithful movie recreation of Bram Stoker's Dracula, though I prefer the unfinished vampire piece written by Lord Byron himself.
I just saw Solomon Kane at Fantastic Fest and totally disagree with this review. Uwe Boll has nothing to do with the movie. Yes, Kane takes refuge in a religious community to avoid the Devil and live a life of peace - shockingly, Puritans had religious communities; they were a (large) offshoot of the Church of England. Furthermore Puritan doctrine, though believing in Calvinist predestination, strongly focused on controlling one's actions.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind someone not liking the movie, but please pick informed reasons...
"So what he's saying is...it ends exactly like a Robert E. Howard Solomon Kane story?"
ReplyDeleteCould you direct me to the Solomon Kane story where the Almighty blasts a beam of light through Solomon Kane's body like he was the Heart of Ahriman? 'Coz nothing I read even remotely resembles divine intervention on behalf of Jehovah, which was almost commendably inconclusive in the stories.
It's total rubbish.. this movie is so lame... there are only 2 good things about the movie.
ReplyDelete1: The music
2: The fact it finally ended
Do yourself a favour and don't waste 2 hours of your life on this piece of crap!