Solomon Kane - Not as bad as you might think

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.

I'm not really sure where 'Solomon Kane' comes from, i.e. its source material.  Perhaps it was a graphic novel, but whatever its origins, no matter how watchable it is, it could probably have done with being a little more 'fleshed out.' It's a shame it was made before Netflix as it could have easily been made into a longer running TV show where all the characters are a little more developed and less one note.  James Purfoy certainly looks the part of the hero and does everything well enough, but, like the other characters, there's not much in the way of 'growth.'

Due to its length it does seem to be a little more of a 'whistle stop' tour of the world it attempts to create.  There's nothing here that will particularly surprise you and - many times - when it tries to be shocking, most will see the plot beats coming a mile off.

However, the one very noticeable difference between this and 'Van Helsing' 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,' but then 'Solomon Kane's' monsters sometimes have that feel that you're watching a Playstation 2 cut-scene) 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.  It was meant to be the first part of a trilogy.  I'm guessing it will never get one, but don't worry about loose ends - it's perfectly able to be enjoyed as a 'stand-alone' affair.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that