Solomon Kane

I assume the impending Solomon Kane movie is of more interest to us than anything since the original "Conan the Barbarian," 27 years ago. I have read rave reviews of it and screaming bashes. The previews, of course, look amazing.

There are two ways the movie can go wrong; one is that it isn't true to the original material, and the second is that it just sucks as a movie.

For a certain group of people -- purists -- if a movie doesn't hew closely to the source material, it's wrong. I take it from reviews that the movie gives Kane a sort of redemption motivation lacking in the original Howard series of stories.

Personally, I don't have a lot of problem with that, as presented. Howard's Kane is kind of a static character, described (in the Wikipedia entry on him) as "a somber-looking man who wanders the world with no apparent goal other than to vanquish evil in all its forms." Certainly fine for a short story series character, but one imagines even Howard would have fleshed out his background had he tackled Kane at novel length.

The other way the movie can go wrong is if it simply blows. Maybe it does. The Internet Movie Database gives it 8.5 stars out of 10. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have a rating yet but the few remarks there were positive.

Prediction: if you're not up on Solomon Kane, you'll dig the movie. If you are a hardcore REH fan, you'll pick it apart. If you have a tolerance for screen adaptations, I'll bet it's great. I will be there as soon as it comes to town, myself.