<i>The major problem with this movie is that it's a "vengeance" film. You know, where something happens to the protagonist that sends him on a murderous rampage to avenge his loved ones, the world or his cat, Mittens.</i>
I don't know if it strictly counts as a "revenge" movie, considering he only goes on said murderous rampage a good part of the way through the film.
Considering Solomon Kane is supposed to be this finely crafted killing machine, the opening was just bland. You see him kill some dudes with a sword and execute a poor guy with a pistol. Fair enough, he can use a sword and pistol, just like most of the people at that time.
Kane killed "some dudes" within the space of a few seconds, and made it look utterly effortless. He made it look like he was toying with them. His executions were to show that he's a dastardly scoundrel who'll shoot someone without remorse, even his own men. It did that quite well.
Nobody wants to watch one of these vengeance movies if the protagonist stumbles his way through some fights while sobbing and moaning the entire time, only to give up halfway and turn into a drunkard, after which, in a fit of renewed defiance, he almost has himself killed except for some random scrub guy saving him. That's the sort of plot you see in those realistic movies, like Edge of Darkness and Death Sentence.
Why should every vengeance movie stick to the norm? Surely providing something different is a good thing, no?
When you're making a sword-and-sorcery movie, don't be afraid to move away from realistic fighting capabilities. After all, the antagonists in this movie are anything but realistic. If the antagonist can wield dark magic, why can't the protagonist wield supernatural fighting skills?
This argument always bothers me. No, we know that the scientific community refutes the notion of magic. That does not mean a film involving an element which isn't real automatically discounts all realism. Rather, the film is asserting that magic, whatever it is, happens to be real, not that the world is unreal. Unless this is something like "Inception" or "The Princess Bride". According to the film, magic is in fact a quantifiable phenomena, which might not be understood or even widely known, but can be treated as an actuality. This doesn't automatically give free reign for all and sundry.
Put it this way: Charles Foster Kane is not real. He did not found a multi-million newspaper, he didn't make a fortune, he didn't have a sled. Does that mean we can depict him as having the ability to transform into animals? Or what about the fictional Motaba virus from "Outbreak": it doesn't exist, and it's far more virulent than any real virus we know of, but does that mean Dustin Hoffman can do gravity-defying kung fu? Just as we can accept that Charles Foster Kane and the Motoba virus are not real *in real life*, but real *in the film,* we can accept that magic in films like "Solomon Kane" can be real *in the film* - without giving carte blanche for any old garbage.
reply
share