Solomon Kane (movie)

The story opens late in the Elizabethian period with our hero, the Dread Pirate Solomon Kane (James Purefoy), sacking some Saracen stronghold of Devil Worshipers. It proves to be a catastrophe where Kane is the sole survivor. Next we see him, he is hidden away in a monastery trying to undo his evil past though knowing he is doomed to hell.

The mood of Kane is in keeping with Robert Howard's vision but the events are not. England is being conquered by some dark lord who corrupts people with his touch, thereby creating bloodthirsty and fearless soldiers for his further conquests. Oddly, Queen Elizabeth seems to be taking no action whatsoever to fight. If she is, we never see it. No, Solomon, who has taken a vow of pacifism, must save the day. Well, the pacifism does not last, thankfully. Eventually, Kane finds the source of the villainy and fights the devil he escaped at the Saracen stronghold.

This movie is supposed to be the origin story, built on what little is revealed of Kane's past in the various stories. I found it mostly disappointing. Kane's unlikeliest adventures - which this would certainly be - all took place in darkest Africa, a place still outside of history. Setting the story in England during the final years of Elizabeth or the early years of James was silly.

Mostly laughable. Very disappointing.

 

Having read all the stories in anticipation of the movie, I was particularly disappointed.  The makers would have been far better served had they just adapted one of the actual Solomon Kane adventures for the screen rather than invent this disaster.

Dragon Sword

 There seems to be a pattern of movies getting renamed when they run on SciFi.  IMDb shows this movie to be titled George and the Dragon.  I reviewed it on August 27, 2006:

Just watched Dragon Sword on SciFi tonight. Set in England during the Crusades, our hero is George. Of course, when one hears about a knight named George from England and talk of Dragons, it is impossible not to think about St. George the Dragonslayer. Sort of gives away the ending, doesn't it? Strangely, no. Though something of a period piece, it doesn't take itself seriously. The fight scenes are reminiscent of Xena and the dialogue uses modern idioms. At one point, a support character escapes on a Medieval skateboard. Though the previews showed dragons, they appear very little. The CGI is mediocre, so it was wise to limit the dragons' role.

The cast is surprising. There was Patrick Swayze as a knight and would-be king who begins as a playful and fun warrior with grand plans only to evolve into a villain. Of course, to have someone who isn't white, it was necessary to introduce a Moor (think Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood) but this time it is Michael Clark Duncan (Green Mile). James Purefoy plays St. George. Val Kilmer even has a cameo. With this cast, the acting was quite good for such campy material.

As I mentioned, the story is set sometime after 1100 AD.  Saint George lived from 275 to 303. So, the story is immediately undermined by the most basic knowledge of history.  Saint George was a Roman soldier who happened to be Christian. He lived in what is now Turkey and was executed for refusing to persecute Christians and also for being a Christian (thus his sainthood). The story of the dragon was attached to him sometime after his death and states that, during his travels, he came to a town terrorized by a dragon and slew it before it devoured the Princess. Even that mythical story is turned on its head in this version since it is the Princess who saves the dragon from George. The historian in me wishes the writers had named him anything but George.

All in all, it wasn't great but it wasn't bad. If you have a couple of hours to kill, I recommend you read some of the marvelous material on this blog. But, if your internet is down for some reason, Dragon Sword is not a bad alternative.