| Author | Message | ||
     Giancarlo (Giancarlo) Username: Giancarlo Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 85.116.228.5 |
Has anybody seen this "Solomon Kane" novelisation by Ramsey yet? It was due from Titan Books on february but it seems already on the verge of selling out! How many copies did they put into print, just a couple score? | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
No harm to Ramsey (and in his shoes I'd do the same) but I am not a fan of novelisations of films, no matter who the author is, and this is one of his books that I won't be reading - while I'm happy for him on a personal level to get the recognition of his professionalism, the work and the dosh. Well done, sir! | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Thanks, Stephen! I tried to incorporate material that Michael Bassett would have liked to film (which was in various earlier drafts of the script) as well as staying true to the final version of the film. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
What is your honest opinion of the finished film, Ramsey? Is it in any way true to Howard's writing? How would it compare, say, to 'The Lord Of The Rings' films or those dodgy 'Conan' adaptations? I may just go and see it tonight to get the taste of 'The Lovely Bones' out of my mouth lol. All this talk of Solomon Kane has got me wanting to read 'The Right Hand Of Doom' collection now... but got 'Lankhmar' and 'The Emperor Of Dreams' to get through first! Happy days!!  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.27.30.20 |
Jonathan Woss liked it. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I thought the film was a genuine attempt to capture the flavour of Howard. It doesn't draw much on specific incidents in the tales, except for the crucifixion, which rather echoes "A Witch Shall Be Born" (Conan, of course, not Kane). The film is impressively sombre and bleak, and I've happily watched it several times (most recently on a big screen). | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
Well Lady P & I saw it last week & I thought it was a very very good attempt at getting heroic fantasy onscreen in a way that remains as faithful as possible to the source material while appealing to a mainstream audience. I've read the Solomon Kane stories in Wordsworth's Right Hand of Doom, plus whatever else made it into the Panther Skullface omnibus from 1976 and I think this movie does as good a job as any could have of adapting Kane to the big screen. James Purefoy is excellent, downplaying the heroics but never descending into annoying emo-type self pity, and Jason Flemyng is a very Howardesque evil magician villain, but the real star is director Michael Bassett who manages some terrific breathtaking visual compositions (bleak landscapes, a graveyard that looks like an updating of the b&w Universal horrors at their best) and never ever descends to the Stephen Sommers poke your eye out with special effects every two minutes approach. I'd heartily recommend it - it's certainly the best attempt at putting Howard on screen so far and it deserves to be successful so they can do another one | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Thanks folks, that's made my mind up about what I'm doing tonight! | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
watching the Crazies instead? | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I dislike remakes of unbetterable horror classics even more than I dislike getting cinema adaptations of literary classics wrong! All the vibes are telling me to give 'Solomon Kane' a chance... which is what I intend to do. Expect a review anon! | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
I confess to not having seen the original, but I really liked the Crazies when I went to see it on Saturday. It wasn't perfect but was nicely paced and scary enough to keep me happy. And, despite what some reviews have said, it's not a fucking zombie film!!! The Crazies are alive and intelligent. Zombies don't shoot people through the head and drive cars. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
'The Crazies' is, for me, one of George A. Romero's genuine masterpieces. They tried to do a PC half-remake of it back in the 90s with 'Outbreak' which was as watered down and forgettable as a US TV Movie of the week. Romero's original is as visceral and unforgiving a horror movie as anything he has made, including 'Night Of The Living Dead', 'Martin' & 'Dawn Of The Dead' - and, you're right, it's not a zombie movie but something much more frightening. A point Danny Boyle didn't stress enough in his, otherwise excellent, homage '28 Days Later'. The sequel, '28 Weeks Later', was closer to the mark. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.131.110.123 |
I wasn't crazy on the movie. It was sort of schizophrenic. I loved the scenes which involved just a few actors talking, which were the ones that stuck in my mind, but the fights etc were just sort of ok, and to be honest a little distracting in that they made you forget the films other qualities. To be honest it had the feel of a good Robin Hood episode, which isn't knocking either Robin Hood or Kane. To be honest, I sort of went to see Kane out of loyalty to the genre, Howard and Ramsey, but sort of wish I had gone to see Crazies.  Stephen - you not read Ramsey other novelizations of films? He's very good at it. They feel like proper books. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.131.110.123 |
I didn't like The Crazies original.... | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.148.244.61 |
I've never read any on Ramseys' film novelisations - in fact I've never seen any of 'em! gcw | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.131.110.123 |
You see, I did like the film, and it had some lovely ideas and moments. I liked it so much I feel bad criticizing it for such trivial reasons. Maybe Peter Jackson should have been asked to do the fights? Heck - maybe Bassett could do the emotional bits for Jackson in his films! | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Went to see 'Solomon Kane' last night and found it a solid entertaining fantasy swashbuckler a lot darker and grimier than I had dared hope, given the too-slick CGI glossiness I have come to expect of modern fantasy films. I thought James Purefoy was perfectly cast, believable and very likeable in the title role. If they had got that part wrong (as with Arnie playing Conan) the whole project would have been hamstrung before it got off the ground. The rest of the cast was of an equally high calibre and was good to see them all playing things straight and doom-laden rather than with any jarring attempts at knowing humour. I agree with Ramsey that this was a genuine attempt to "capture the flavour of Howard" but I did have several problems with the film that just stop me from giving it an unequivocal thumbs up. For me it seems obvious that the director wasn't allowed full artistic control as the nicely understated and historically convincing look and feel of the film was spoiled somewhat by two glaringly inappropriate and OTT "big CGI action sequences" that bookended the film and gave it that schizophrenic quality Tony mentioned. The final battle with the CGI Demon was particularly unconvincing given how well choreographed the non-CGI battles and swordfights had been up until then. This studio interference (I'm sure) is becoming more and more of a problem in fantasy cinema nowadays imo... and is primarily the reason why I will always hark back to movies like 'Excalibur', 'Flesh And Blood' and even 'Monty Python And The Holy Grail' as to how the blood, grime and squalor of the middle ages should be properly represented! My other problem was with the 15 Certificate that always meant we were never going to get the full blood 'n' thunder epic this film should have been given the source material. For someone to film Robert E. Howard faithfully there should be no holding back on the blood soaked violence or full frontal nudity. His stories demand an open-minded adult audience and an 18 Certificate! Nothing less will do... Having said that, 'Solomon Kane' is the best Howard adaptation I have seen to date and I hope it is successful and spawns a series of ever darker and bloodier sequels with James Purefoy in the lead role. So overall a commendable effort that could bode even better things to come and well worth watching for all serious fantasy fans. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.72 |
An extract from Ramsey's book is available for reading on Amazon.co.uk. Select the look inside option beneath the book cover and then 'excerpt' and you'll find the opening pages. Excellent. | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 86.29.176.137 |
Anyone who's interested in the original Solomon Kane stories can sample an extract by looking up THE RIGHT HAND OF DOOM and then following the procedure mentioned in the above post. | ||
| Colin Leslie (Blackabyss) Username: Blackabyss Registered: 02-2010 Posted From: 86.132.5.239 |
I read the novelisation and actually really enjoyed it. Review here:- http://talesfromtheblackabyss.com/2010/03/07/solomon-kane-by-ramsey-campbell/ | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Hey, thanks, Colin! |