Be glad this movie is tied up in distribution rights or whatever. your eyes will thank you.
This movie is garbage and someone should burn any film reel that came into contact with it. Blood Rayne was a better movie, at least that had Sir Ben Kingsley.
If I had a dollar for every thread on the IMDB boards entitled 'Worst Movie Ever', I'd be able to retire.
http://hexfan.proboards.com/index.cgi
We could retire together? now what miracle we must do to get those dollars?
--------------------------------------------------
If you want horror - tune in the news channel.
Bloodrayne is an Uwe Boll movie. I wouldn't even describe my most hated film as worse than an Uwe Boll movie. Uwe Boll movies transcend bad into a whole other dimension of heinousness.
There is absolutely no way Solomon Kane, flawed as it is, is worse than an Uwe Boll film.
OP you're a moron, this movie was solid and only an imbecile such as yourself would give Uwe Boll that much credit. Now please kill yourself and rid the world of your stupidity.
"Join the army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill 'em." - Woody Allen
I am dead serious. Uwe makes better films than this.
Solid film? Come on. They broke every cardinal rule of filmaking, the #1 being "don't mess with the book until it's unrecognizable." That is what they've done here. This movie is boring and lame.
I reserve this hatred for special cases, and this is it.
I am dead serious. Uwe makes better films than this.
Solid film? Come on. They broke every cardinal rule of filmaking, the #1 being "don't mess with the book until it's unrecognizable." That is what they've done here. This movie is boring and lame.
I reserve this hatred for special cases, and this is it.
The only critique you give the film is that it doesn't follow the source material to your standards. I believe your harshness on the film is due more to lack of film knowledge then the actual quality of the film.
Either way, a troll is a troll.
No, we Howard fans are just tired of never getting a film that closely resembles the source material.
i loved this film, though! Worth the three year wait!
"Your speech is wild and godless... but I find myself liking you." - Solomon Kane
If the OP of this thread didn't like the movie, then fine. That's his opinion, I don't have a problem. But what I always find funny is when someone claims a film is the worst movie ever made. I mean have you seen EVERY movie ever made? If you have then okay I'll believe you that Solomon Kane is the worst movie ever made. But I kind of doubt it.
"I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard."
Not the best but far from being the worst.
I think OP you should look to your own shores for the worst film ever made, Jonah Hex may well be a good place to start hmmmmmmmm?
Why quote other people when I like the sound of my own voice?
Not the best but far from being the worst.
I think OP you should look to your own shores for the worst film ever made, Jonah Hex may well be a good place to start hmmmmmmmm?
Why quote other people when I like the sound of my own voice?
What I really don't get is that people who love books often want to have films made of their favourite books that are 100 per cent book made into film. In my experience the most true adaptions are the most boring ones. And if you have some phantasie yourself no movie can be as good as the movie in your head, when you read a great book.
sharemcr76 is right, I have not seen every movie. I thought that I had until recently I discovered some dreadfully titled movie about tossing someone in a blanket from 1898 that I had not had a chance to review.
So I have edited the title of this thread accordingly, until the time comes when I can procure a copy of this rare historical film, thus completing my collection.
*beep* off, troll.
shareThe OP is unfortunately entitled to their opinion no matter what they say about the movie. But the movie in my opinion does not suck. It is one of the best movies in the past five years EASILY. It pisses all over a lot of what Hollywood has given us lately. And as for "Bloodrayne" like the OP mentioned. It was ok but it is not even in the same league as this movie. It is so far behind that it would need binoculars to see Solomon Kane that was way out in front. Comparing these two movies is like comparing Iron Maiden (Solomon Kane) to Metallica (Bloodrayne). This is the difference.
"You wont give me the f_ckin day off?. I f_ckin work 8 hours a week."
I guess.
shareHave you seen any movie there is a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode of? I implore you to watch a single episode of your choosing (or just the corresponding movie). You will forever appreciate movies like this a lot more. Flawed but of some quality, unlike a lot, A LOT of movies out there (the '80s and '90s are littered with below B-grade schlock).
Believe it or not, there are movies without a single good actor. There are movies without a single good line. There are movies with NOTHING to look at; no interesting scenery, no cinematography to speak of. This is seriously an okay movie.
---
Morning sun, vanquish me!
I guess that when they make a movie out of a book you really enjoy, you're gonna be expecting something more out of it than the regular movie gowers. Now I've read quite a few Solomon Kane stories and although entertaining they're nothing special. The idea of a wandering puritan without a personality doesn't really make a good character. I appreciate the fact that they tried to give Solomon Kane a background in this movie.
However, I had the chance to read the script before I saw the movie. Due to budgetary reason they had to take a few important scenes out. Not only that but halfway through the movie they started rushing things. Too bad. This could've been a really great movie had they had a bigger budget.
So the movie is far from being the worst ever but crap compared to what it could've been.
Now I've read quite a few Solomon Kane stories and although entertaining they're nothing special.
The idea of a wandering puritan without a personality doesn't really make a good character.
I appreciate the fact that they tried to give Solomon Kane a background in this movie.
However, I had the chance to read the script before I saw the movie.
A shame you think that, though perhaps after decades of authors ripping off Howard in Sword-and-Sorcery, fantasy and horror, perhaps the impact is lessened.
I find this absolutely baffling. How could you find a character who's so full of conflict, passion, anger, resolve and humour to be "without a personality"? A character who is constantly trying to alternately reconcile and separate the pagan and puritan aspects of his personality, frequently having to reassert his entire worldview when he encounters eldritch terrors and ancient sorcery? A character who's charismatic, driven and altogether fascinating is not, in my opinion, lacking in personality.
Which script was this? I hated the one I read, but it was an early draft where Kane could "see" the demons crawling under men's skin and stuff like that.
1: I wonder if part of the issue is that modern authors are often so overwhelming with extraneous detail that stories from REH and HPL just seem too bland to most modern readers. We're used to getting descriptions of a character from the circumstances of their birth to their exact height and weight (and if you're reading any Wheel of Time, the color of someone's hair and eyes, the cut and make and quality and pattern and cloth type and color and cost of every piece of clothing every character ever wears ever in the entire series). It feels strange and a little off-putting for readers accustomed to that level of detail to pick up something that's 'tall, dark haired, wearing a hat' level of uncomplicated.
2: Characterization... I've read more Conan stories than Solomon, and that's not really saying much, but I don't remember Conan being fleshed out particularly. REH was pretty consistent - warmongering womanizer - and it sounds like he was pretty consistent with Kane from what you've said. I've not read the story mentioned (N'Longa giving him the staff), but I kind of wonder if the difference is that he's taking and potentially using (?) something he would consider 'evil,' based on his puritan ideals. Recognizing things like that are out there is one thing; being asked to or expected to use one of those things yourself is something else.
3: Crap compared to what it could have been? Is that just based on the script you read? If the budget had been bigger and they could have had the extra special effects, it would have been a *great* movie?
All things considered, I thought it very well done. Some excellent character actors in the girl's parents, and Purefoy is fun to watch. The only truly terrible performances, imo, were the child versions of Kane and his brother - the other younger actors were pretty solid. The only effects I found particularly campy were the blood sprays in some fight sequences, but otherwise things were dirty and ugly and relatively realistic - at least people didn't look as though they'd wandered out of a makeup trailer and put on scrubby clothes to play pretend. They actually look grubby, which adds a bit of authenticity.
It's not a great movie, but I'd say it's solidly in the realm of 'good.' It's absolutely a far cry from anything Uwe Boll has ever touched - that guy can take a talented actor like Ben Kingsley and pull out a terrible performance.
Sorry, not my style, but I have to say this:
Only an idiot can describe a movie as the worst one has ever seen and hope it doesn't get an audience.
I can understand you don't like the movie. It's then a matter of taste - acquired or not.
But wishing it doesn't come to the US?
So far, I have lost 6 phrases - including this one - to hint at your complete narrow-mindedness, and I think this is enough said.