If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Being an idiotic teenager, I am easily pleased by the good ol' ridiculous violence and overwhelming amounts of fake blood when it comes to films — or even games. As expected, this film is filled to the bloody core with it, and as it is well choreographed, visually impressive and with bloody amounts of blood, it's great, as bloody action goes.Nonetheless, it's by far the best thing the film has to offer. A slightly cheesy script, some hammy performances and a definitely- not-influenced-by-The-Lord-of-the-Rings plot mean Solomon Kane's not exactly a work of genius. However, I happened to like the 1600's west country setting, which is fittingly gloomy and pays homage to the cider drinking farmers' land — even though Axemouth Castle unfortunately does not exist. I forgive 'em for that though, because I don't really care about that nitty gritty stuff; especially considering all the great villain designs.The cheesiness is a bit of a problem though, and a lot of the performances are indeed hammy, as the film also doesn't try that much that's new. Even if there is some great action in a good setting Solomon Kane has its fair share of flaws and isn't one for the ages. For a teenage boy like me it is enjoyable for what it is, but, I think I've made my point.66/100.

I read another review on Solomon Kane and it described it as 'They way Van Helsing should have been, if it wasn't rubbish.' Personally, I think that's a little unfair on Hugh Jackman's portrayal of the legendary vampire hunter, but, in some ways, I can see the reason behind it.Solomon Kane is a very similar beast. It's set in the middle ages in England and has a very familiar/Van Helsing-ish feel to it, i.e. you have the long haired man in black (complete with hat) fighting monsters (only Solomon has to contend with mainly demons and witches, rather than vamps and werewolves) while on a path to redemption.However, the one very noticeable difference is the budget. Van Helsing had one, Solomon Kane has less of one. Therefore there's less CGI special effects (some may say that's a bonus, based on the quality of Van Helsing's) and less big action scenes. What you have instead is some 'gritty realism' - or as gritty and real as a film can be about slaying mythical creatures.Solomon Kane is basically Van Helsing, minus the budget, plus the gore. It's actually quite good, for what it is. It'll never be more than a cult hit, but if you're into sword and sorcery (and want to see the first hero ever who sports a West Country accent) then you can do worse than this.

Wow a SyFy movie that is actually good!! You have a mercenary who foreswears violence after he learns his soul is going to Hell. He retreats to a monastery as part of his restitution to his oath to God. After a couple of years he is told by the abbot to leave it and go out in to the world again. He joins a small group who are peace lovers, they actually resemble Pilgrims in dress. Anyway he still refuses to fight even after their small camp is attacked by the devil spawn of Malichi. He then renounces his vow of peace after they kill the father and kidnap the young daughter. Pursuing the evil ones he eventually over takes them. Along the way he has picked up some supporting forces. There is the epic battle of good versus evil and of course good wins out. The girl is rescued and the hero is saved from Hell. Basically a pretty good movie.

From the moment Solomon lays his eyes on gorgeous Hurd-Wood it is so painfully predictable that she will be his damsel-in-distress for the duration, hence her kidnapping is a foreseeable affair that does the plot no favours. Worse yet, Solomon is so gullible (which makes no sense considering the life he'd once lead) that he falls for a lie one of the demon's bums tells him about her being dead. Kane stupidly believes him – with no skepticism – and then falls into depression; this was a dumb move on the part of the writer.The other major flaw is the casting of the wizard. Jason Flemyng is so BADLY miscast that his very appearance signals the movie's big let-down moment. So FLEMYNG (with a Y) is supposed to be the macabre, Satanic wizard everyone is terrified of? Really? Whoever cast this guy as a demon is a moron and has no clue about film-making.James Purefoy sounds like David Wenham and looks like Thomas Jane. When it turned out he was neither of them, it was somewhat confusing.