Ink (I) (2009) User Reviews

"Something's Got to Stop the Flow"

[dabrygo · 7/10 · 9 January 2021]

John has worked hard to climb the corporate ladder from his humble origins but, unless something changes, his ambitions and grudges will destroy his relationship with his daughter Emma. At the same time, while the world sleeps at night, it is visited by Storytellers (who give people good dreams) and Incubi (who give people nightmares). When an interloper named Ink kidnaps Emma to hand her over to the Incubi, the Storytellers unite with a Pathfinder (who can influence what people do during their waking hours) to make things right.

I think I first saw this one with my brother around the time it was released. The fantasy world in its well-crafted story is very engaging. A few times the dialog felt a little off to me, but the characters are interesting and the actors do a good job of bringing them to life.

The description on the back of the DVD says its been compared to The Matrix, Brazil, and Dark City, which I sensed especially through the excellent camera work and cinematography. One scene in particular of the Pathfinder "stopping the flow" is very masterfully executed!

Way in, awesome movie

[josephfrio13 · 8/10 · 26 January 2022]

Awesome low budget movie. Kept me wondering throughout. Enjoyed the character relationship. Killer concept. I see more recent films already homaging/copying the look of the villains with the eyes.

What a surprise

[reflectionofpower · 8/10 · 18 February 2021]

I thought this movie was very intriguing and creative. Unique divisions in the story and yet it all goes together. You will watch the movie and then when it ends you will go, Wow, that was a good movie.

Very well written and directed. Cinematic shots and effects were just right.

Unique

[robertallanmerritt · 8 November 2009]

While I have stood idly by and read others comments on so many movies, I feel compelled to say something about this one. Truly a work of art, and it's an injustice that it is not more well known for I stumbled across this movie by chance and had heard nothing of it. This is far better than anything at the theaters now a days and was so well done in every aspect of it. A must see movie for anyone who gets a chance, like an escape away from the usual routine we are accustomed to.

From the beginning this movie will grab your attention. From the subtle effects that are done just right, to the acting from all parties of the cast. A very wholesome experience. Perhaps the rest of the film industry could take a lesson or two and make a decent movie like this and not waste millions of dollars on the junk they crank out on a daily basis.

Ink is not your typical indie film

[SomePostman · 9/10 · 22 March 2009]

I admit, for the first 20 minutes or so of the film I did not enjoy it, and was thinking to myself, "oh, this is going to be one of those movies that no one understands with gaping plot holes and a messed up timeline that is nearly impossible to follow." It quickly turned around. The film is absolutely outstanding for an independent production, with solid acting from the whole cast, BEAUTIFUL cinematography, a good script, and excellent music. The only thing that really bothered me were a few sections of dialogue that seemed to spell out the plot a little too much, and they felt a little out of place. Though it is very difficult to explain the plot, everything makes sense when you see it.

Ink is a unique film that has a very professional feel for just a $250,000 project. It feels almost like a hybrid of The Matrix, What Dreams May Come, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I sincerely hope that you have a chance to see Ink, and hopefully it gets a proper theatrical release. It deserves it.

Winans Shows Indies How To Do It Right

[jim-2525 · 9/10 · 22 March 2009]

This movie is a gem. A very ambitious project for such a low budget, it has a large cast, many locations and very effective visual effects. More importantly, it has an interesting and inventive story line, memorable characters inhabited by capable performances and a great pace to the editing. It takes us on a surreal journey back and forth between our world, and that of the title character, Ink. Ink is a neophyte Incubus, part of a race of beings that bring us bad dreams and are invisible to humans. When a Storyteller (part of the race of people who bring us good dreams) encounters Ink trying take the last step to becoming a full-fledged Incubus by kidnapping a little girl, a great battle ensues. We are carried between realities, through time and along a great ride that I know I won't soon forget.

There are a few relevant twists that I wont mention here, which unfold effectively along the way. They never seem forced to me, but act as a slow realization. This is one of the things that was most impressive about the film: It was made by a confident and capable director who lets the story reveal itself as it should, trusting the audience to make the necessary connections. A rare trait among independent filmmakers who are either too obtuse and obscure in the delivery of their art, or who err on the other side, dumbing down their story to ensure the audience "gets it". Winans does neither and lets you feel a part of the process with his confidence in your abilities as the viewer. The ending is satisfying without being overplayed, and there was enough going on through out making me want to see it again to look for more.

It's not a perfect film, but my quibbles are as much my personal taste as anything else. And those critiques are too small to mention here.

Ink has proved to me what can be done on a low-budget and with limited resources when you have a great script and take the time to do it right. I don't know what the budget was, but I'm pretty sure it was ridiculously small for the type of production value Winans delivers. He wrings good performances from the unknown cast through out. And while none were quite Oscar-worthy to me, the large cast blends well together and a few performances are really good. More importantly, none are that red flag you almost always see in an indie film. You know the one. It reminds you that this is being made by a low budget cast and crew somewhere. The action sequences are very effective, interestingly shot and edited without looking like they are the focus of the film.

Ink looks, sounds and feel like what we all hope for when going to see an indie: a "real" movie.

Folks, you are going to be hearing about this one. I guarantee it.

The predicted age of cheap digital storytelling accessible to anyone with a vision is coming true

[Polaris_DiB · 7/10 · 26 November 2009]

The best way I can approach this movie is to compare it to a similar discovery situation, Night Watch. Occasionally these small movies come out that nobody has ever heard of that suddenly appear on the rental wall in the midst of all the noise, with an appealing cover that reveals a visual experience different from the norm. When Night Watch appeared, however, I was mostly disappointed by a poorly written fantasy movie of the usual tropes with directing and editing that tried its damnedest to be completely unwatchable. When I discovered Ink, the first interpretation was that I had gone down the same path--only for the movie to slowly reveal it's true nature as a slyly paced, WELL-written fantasy... .of the usual tropes.

Part of the difficulty in getting into this movie is the seven different beginnings it has. It honestly takes a while for the plot to build any momentum, and I fear quite a lot of people may be turned off of the movie before it reaches it's full velocity. The story is about a man named John, separated from his daughter, who has to rediscover his shame and get knocked out of his escapist over-successful capitalist life before his and his daughter's soul is lost. Instead of being a metaphorical drama, however, the characters are revealed through a parallel universe of Storytellers and Incubi. Storytellers are dream creators that go house to house spreading cheer and hope in people's sleep. Incubi, thus, are the demonic flashy-eyed people straight from Sin City and The City of Lost Children that are the necessary foils, spreading bad dreams and despair. A mysterious, ugly, shrouded man named Ink appears and steals John's daughter from her guardian Storyteller so that he can take them to the Incubi and become an Incubus himself. This theft then becomes a journey of redemption as the daughter's Storyteller in the parallel world and John in the real world have to come to the aide of the daughter--without ever having contact with each other, and in John's case, without even knowing he's on a quest.

Admittedly, as fantasy movies go this one screams of a writer/director who has read way too much Neil Gaiman. Nevertheless, for that particular sub-set of fantasy genre (the parallel universe as journey for character change in the real world) is a successful formula, and the visual aspects of this movie are quite unique. The editing will turn off anybody who likes the camera to linger for more than a second on anyone's face but, as annoying and jumpy as it gets I can't honestly say it wasn't without purpose, as Jamin Winans is aiming for a beat and the fighting sequences pop in a way that I haven't seen before. What happens with this movie is, it starts to seem like it isn't going anywhere and that the style is causing the narrative to fall apart until a sequence where the beat of the world is revealed from a man named the Pathfinder, at which point the internal logic of the movie finally click into place, the gears start turning, and the rest of the pieces fall into order. It is unfortunate that it takes so long for the movie to get to that place, but on the other hand most of the first half is just trying to figure out how to get all of the many elements of the story introduced, and the low-budget production value of the thing reveals they didn't have much options.

Which brings me back to my comparison with Night Watch. Night Watch's problems entirely consist of the fact that the director, Timur Bekmambetov, doesn't give a crap about what happens in the story as long as he gets to show off the thousands of different shots he thinks makes the movie look bad-ass. The result is a frustratingly stylistic movie where nothing can be seen because it cuts too fast and the twist at the end makes no sense whatsoever. Ink is the glad foil to that, a stylistic movie that shows off thousands of different shots that make the movie look bad-ass, mostly because the director is trying to fit so much information into what eventually builds into a story that he originally has a bit of difficulty telling. It's not a perfect movie by any means, and it may not get Winans a deal to make some egregiously over-budgeted movie like Wanted, but what it really reveals ultimately is that even crazy digital fantasies such as these are within reach of imperfect storytellers who nevertheless want to make a special effects movie and get it distributed.

Did I mention distribution? Oh yeah. By the way: distributors turned from this as a lost cause because unlike Night Watch, it didn't get Quentin Tarantino's seal of approval. The result? Bittorrent fame as Ink was released on the Internet to garner word of mouth praise. The result? Ink is now on DVD. Like this year's Paranormal Activity, Ink is revealing what people have been talking about whimsically for the past decade: cheap digital equipment is making even the most SFX-filled fantasy movie ideas accessible to independent filmmakers with a vision and a story to tell. It's happening now. The result? Who knows, but without an ounce of irony I say this movie is better than Transformers 3 will be.

I have also seen a short movie by Winans called "Spin", and so far it seems he is a director interested in the musical beat of movies and how they can affect the -- literal -- pace of narrative. It'll be interesting to see if he develops these ideas further and how many different ways he can go about it.

--PolarisDiB

Are you serious? Not sci-fi. Not any genre. Not good.

[isomrb-imdb · 1/10 · 15 December 2009]

This movie was appalling to watch. The moment that I started to see the cheesy effects and overexposed shots, I started to suspect I was in for a disappointing evening.

The plot is almost entirely incoherent until the end, which would not be problematic, except that the only reason the audience is left in the dark is to hide the poor storytelling. The dialogue throughout the film is banal at the best of times and absolutely revolting during the rest--which is to say, most of the film. Furthermore, the characters are all either one-dimensional or archetypes that have been recycled too many times and in better films.

To say that the acting is subpar, would require a Ghandi-like generosity of spirit that I simply do not have. The "pathfinder" character is played by someone who attended the Dane Cook School of Acting. The only actor/actress with any real talent is the little girl. The rest of the cast displays as much subtlety as a Thomas Hardy novel.

Many of the shots during the film--especially the main character's flashbacks--play like a Zales commercial. They are saccharine enough to cause early-onset diabetes. This is worsened by being combined with poorly choreographed fight sequences and unimaginative special effects. (Dark City from which Ink stole the portrayal of the incubus had far superior special effect over ten years ago.) The pacing of the film is unnecessarily slow. I would liken the experience to traveling 5 mph in a beat up Ford Pinto through a ghost town that has been lit on fire.

In summary, I would rather give myself a root canal with rusty coat hanger than have to watch this again.

Many people like this film......they are wrong.

A Beautiful Experience

[noelmt · 10/10 · 1 December 2009]

When I first started watching this movie I felt that it was going in the typical direction - horror/ fantasy/ gory/ supernatural formula. How wrong I was. It is a movie that has such depth and a life lesson that all of us will learn, or are learning, or have already learned, and that is don't lose your way in this wondrous journey of life and miss out on what are the most important things. It is so easy to get laden down with the burden of day to day survival that we lose sight of what we should hold most precious; love, honesty and forgiveness. This movie, at my time in life, touched me so personally. I cried tears of regret and sadness at missed opportunities and wasted time. I recommend this movie most highly and commend the film makers/ storytellers who created this excellent experience!

Good Indie movie with an amazing ending.

[voidi · 7/10 · 20 November 2009]

I must say I've rarely been torn about a movie that much. First off, for a low-budget indie production, this movie is great, no doubt. But how does it compare to the Hollywood productions with similar ideas?

The beginning is very strenuous to watch. It takes a long time before you will understand anything that's going on. This will not change until somewhere between the middle and the end, and thus frustrate many viewers.

The story itself is creative and refreshing, but very confusing, I guess you could call it an adult fairy tale. The movie raises questions about family values, moral obligations, self-esteem and shame, all of them well developed and executed.

The actors are mostly doing a good job, although some of the supporting actors' (one actress in particular) emotions are a bit too extreme to be believable, but this does not really disturb the illusion and is merely a minor inconvenience.

The effects are worth their money and quite impressive for a low-budget production.

What ultimately makes this movie worth watching, however, is the truly great ending. If you are patient enough to sit through the movie as a whole and pardon the few flaws in it, you will be rewarded with an emotional, surprising and heart-warming ending.

Abysmal

[dc-parisian · 3/10 · 7 November 2009]

You've no doubt already read the summary, now hold on a second and hear me out: I'll start by stating that I like many others had heard the comparisions and praise this film has been receiving, so I decided to stoke my curiosity, bad idea. This film has a few good ideas wrought with poor execution. The nature of the story is something we have heard before, the conflict is nothing new. Some have commented on the actors, and yes, they are as bad as you've heard. The script, or lack thereof, is very thin, very very poor character development in every case except John the main character. Why is he so important? The movie never tells you, the storytellers and incubus are just there to be opposing forces and add to a weak narrative. The concept is great and when I read the description I was excited, I understand the limited budget but you cannot use that to justify the dross of this film. The story is told in fragmented pieces, which has been done quite a bit already, but it isn't done well. Not until the 40 minute mark do we have any sort of idea of whats going on, they should have left at least 20 minutes on the cutting room floor. The film lacks dialoge too, for the slow pacing you would expect some dialoge to keep things moving, but all you get is a mediocre score that only aids the snail-like pace of the movie.

So why did I even bother giving it a 3? There's some neat concepts that should have stayed in the oven a bit longer for one. Second, it has some decent effects here and there that were impressive for the budget. And third some of the photography is somewhat inspired. But in most of the film I disagree with the photography, it really should have been applied better so you knew what dimension you were in, or you knew you were watching a dream or a flashback and so on. I cannot in good conscience recommend this film to anyone who wants a film with substance or a good cohesive idea because this movie does not know what it is trying to be.

Truly Remarkable Indie that defies categorization

[robgold31 · 9/10 · 29 November 2009]

A bold, rich and very remarkable film. This is art, not entertainment. Story: This little movie defies easy categorization; there is nothing quite like it that I am aware of. For students of literature, you will find connection to the work of Dante -- in particular, The Inferno -- and other works that portray a human being losing his/her soul, for that is what this movie is about. There are philosophers (Rudolf Steiner) who believe that the world is literally divided into overlapping, parallel worlds populated by forces of dark and light (not good and evil) where each side works continuously to influence human beings leaning in one direction or the other -- the demon lying upon us as we sleep, feeding us nightmares; the angel gently stroking our forehead, comforting us as we face our deepest fears. This is an epic and continual battle in which the darkness in the world comes from those of us who have committed treasonous acts against our own humanity and suffer, in proportion, consequences for having done so. In film, I would group this with movies like Renee Missel's Resurrection or Blatty's totally brilliant Ninth Configuration. But bear in mind that you are watching an INDIE, which means limited money to make the film. Therefore, production values suffer at times: there are weak special effects, low budget costuming, limits to cinematography, etc. These should be easy to overlook given the scope and depth of this work. Jamin Winans has crafted a minor masterpiece. The ensemble acting is uniformly superb, but Mr. Kelly carries this film with a deeply felt and gifted performance. Though the story may be difficult to follow because of its unique and complex subject matter; in fact, it is tight as a drum with virtually every shot and edit building on those that preceded it, but it will take a second viewing to discover this. The direction is very fine: the film absolutely has a look and feel expressive of its content. The use of off-color green was effective and quietly disturbing, as was the black ink-like flow covering the protagonist at specific moments throughout the film. At a time when our entire culture is in danger of losing it's soul, when so many are seeking insight into something deeper and truer, this film could not be more appropriate. INK is what Independent films are supposed to be: intelligent, deep, inspired, rich, genuine, quirky, imperfect expressions that Hollywood could never make or would simply ruin because of commercial pressures. Mr. Winans -- thank you.

A bit disappointed

[joris-nightwalker · 6/10 · 22 December 2014]

The weirder a movie gets, the more I'll like it. Not unconditionally, but close. My expectations for Ink were extremely high so it's pretty astonishing that it took my several years before watching it. Now that Jamin Winans released his third movie recently, Ink got my attention again. After watching it my feelings were mixed. Although it is a very strange story indeed, a lot of the movie felt very conventional. The acting was pretty mediocre (as if the movie was made for television in the 1990s), the storyline was drenched in too much pathos (with a soundtrack that magnified this feeling a lot) and the visual style felt all a bit too much "post-production editing". I get why Ink is labeled a cult movie, as I think its following is indeed very small yet passionate, but it didn't do all that much for me. Too bad, 'cause I really wanted to like this film a lot...

Amateur hour(s)

[conveniantjim · 1/10 · 9 November 2009]

Well firstly I must say all the shills in this comment/review section suckered me into watching this film. Really before I start trust me that they are shills without a doubt. No sane person unrelated to the makers of this film would ever give it over 5/10.

Well I'll start with the positives- There are some nice effects here and there with one glaring exception. The succubus bad guys do look quite sinister using simple but quite effective tricks. The filters and muted colours are evocative and suit the material.

OK that's that over with. Now I will try to keep the negatives relatively succinct so this doesn't turn into an epic post.

The script is just a shambles. Utter juvenile trash. I mean this rubbish manages to make Twilight look like dostoevsky. That bad. The theme of dreams is apt as the plot seems to have been literally dreamed up over night. Or probably during the course of a daydream while sat on the bus to work(school). There is little explanation of the tenuous reasons for the bizarre dream people who give good dreams etc. And if you can manage to get to the toe curling finale you will probably feel very frustrated. The kung fu fighting while adequately choreographed and performed lacks any real context and as a result any real impact. The lead actor is the only actor who seems to have anything even approaching professional abilities, and those are rendered laughable by one half of his role which includes the comically bad prosthetic nose. I do actually feel sorry for that guy as if he wasn't literally smothered by this juvenile nonsense he may be capable of putting in an acceptable sub-bale performance.

The characters are all paper thin and range from the simply annoying to the truly silly. Stupid angel with no eyes character tries so hard to be annoyingly funny but is just annoying. The storyteller has some of the most toe curling and awkward lines I have heard. And there are some other people. That's about the best I can say. There are some other people who say some things that are irrelevant and have some irrelevant kung fu fights. Although the little young girl does actually manage to not be annoying or precocious.

The dialogue is consistently dreadful throughout and really reaches a peak of absurdity towards the end. Leaden and ham fisted platitudes pour from your speakers like a sonic cancer.

Well thats about all I can say really. This is easily the worst film I have ever wasted my time on and I have seen some real stinkers. Jamin Winans as I note is listed as director/producer/writer/editor/composer. Well maybe for your next film you might think about sharing some of that load with some people who can actually do that work. You know, maybe get some of those shills to actually help you make a good film instead of spamming IMDb with nonsense reviews. I understand this is an indie low budget feature but that really doesn't excuse the utter rubbish that has been produced. If anything this film is pretty negative for indie features as there is such a gulf between this and a good high budget film.

Nice little indie film, not a 10, but certainly not a 1 either.

[Barbecue · 7 August 2011]

Ink is a nicely done low-budget indie film with an interesting visual style. It's not a masterpiece, but it's really quite well done, despite some fairly weak acting (in some places it's downright cringe-worthy.) The dialog ranges from clever to humdrum, but I've heard worse in blockbusters from big studios, who don't have the excuse of a low budget and limited resources. The story is simple, but told in a non-linear fashion that I found interesting but never baffling. Nothing in the movie seemed arbitrary or random. It was obviously a labor of love, and I for one am willing to overlook the flaws and appreciate this film as a sincere and energetic effort by a director with potential.

Absolutely Fantastic Indie

[the_bulb · 9/10 · 9 November 2009]

I regret that I watched a pirated download of this movie. It was fantastic, and it truly deserves my money. However, that said, I don't know how else I would have found out about this absolute gem of independent film-making if it wasn't for seeing it on a list of downloads and feeling curious. My ONLY quarrel with Ink is the quality of the visuals themselves. I understand the desire to create a dreamlike, otherworldly atmosphere; but blowing out all the whites and softening the image can only be tolerated for so long. In some ways it makes the movie look cheap, which couldn't be more misleading. I think it's best to go into Ink curious. I didn't really know what the film was about when I began watching it other than it dealt with the idea of parallel worlds (and I think one review equated it with The Matrix some how); but it was a pleasure to let the film unfold in front of me, never knowing exactly where it was going and letting all of the puzzle pieces eventually drop perfectly into place. Although sometimes the costuming leaves something to be desired, the actors wear them confidently and never let you feel like you're being swindled. That said, the acting was top notch. Especially from lead Chris Kelly. Keeping everything I just said in mind, I would like to reiterate that Ink is an INDIE. Those looking for a big-budget thrill-ride will be slightly disappointed. But it is a remarkable indie. It doesn't let it's budget get in the way of a great story, startlingly impressive special effects (car crash scene is top-notch), visionary directing, and chameleon acting. This IS indie film-making. And it's the furthest thing from that soft-spined 'mumblecore' that lovers of independent film have been forced to sleep through for the past decade. I can't wait to see what's next from Jamin Winans. In the meantime I'm going to track down a copy of Ink all legal-like to add to my collection. In fact, if you're reading this post and are interested in watching it, try to find it legally - only because it's worth the purchase and it lets investors see audiences appreciate intelligent independent film-making. It's well worth the purchase.

10/10 for pure ambition

[mrmatt14 · 10/10 · 20 November 2009]

This is a far from perfect movie. The acting was shaky at times, and the cinematography sometimes was overwhelming. This was low-budget, and the flaws that come from those restrictions were clearly evident.

However, I'm 100% sure that if this movie had the budget of even a "mainstream" indie, it wouldn't be half the movie that it is. Despite its occasional flaws, I have to give this 10 of 10, simply for the pure ambition of the filmmakers. Ink is challenging stuff.

This is a difficult, but meaningful and thought provoking story which requires complete attention. It's not enough to watch it casually, as it'll be completely missed. It's slow starting, but give it a chance and the film is inescapable and deeply affecting.

I've seen enough movies of all sorts that I genuinely appreciate when a filmmaker shows me something entirely new and different. Ink delivers, in spades.

Made with care

[imbicta · 7/10 · 14 November 2009]

It takes special skills for this enterprise: telling a fairy tale in Matrix times, with no famous actors involved and with a low budget available. There are moments in this movie when you think that it will fall definitely into ridicule. But it never does, thanks to the huge care of the director. Some action scenes are really innovative and the script is very well written.

And now the best: if you decide to keep on watching it after the first 20 minutes (if you don't particularly like fairy tale stories you'll be tempted to quit), you will be rewarded with a different, fresh, tender and dynamic approach into telling grown-ups a moving tale of their childhood. Worth seeing it, no doubt.

Poor story, actors, dialogs, nice effects

[FrankMr · 1/10 · 21 November 2009]

Honestly, I really can't understand the good rating of this movie. Well, 4-5 stars, OK, but 7, that's sick. I also watched this movie because of the good reception this movie got, and sadly it was a waste of time.

I watched the whole movie, which was pretty difficult sometimes, and I had to split it up in two days, because it was so damn boring.

But well, let's start with the good things: The effects are astonishing for this low budget, some scenes are really great, there are a some good ideas in this movie (first fight scene), soundtrack is OK and the little girl and her father played their roles very well.

However, that's the whole good stuff. In contrast to those two good actors performed the rest really poor. Worst, the story teller. I don't know if it's the actors fault or because of the lack of dialogs, if we can call them dialogs at all. As I said in the beginning it was really troublesome for me to watch this movie. On the one hand because of the poor actors, on the other hand, because of the lack of dialogs and long senseless scenes. You can watch a second movie at the same time and still know at the end what Ink was about. The story executed in this movie is poor (I don't talk about the idea), the dialogs non-existent and action not available (fight scenes look ridiculous), the story and the characters have just no depth and the background music in dialogs too loud most of the time (maybe so we don't notice how poor the dialogs really are).

It was one of the most boring movies I've ever watched. If I look back and try to remember some good scenes or dialogs of this movie or some scenes I would like to look again, well, then there's nothing.

Humanistic, existential, social comment in a cinematographic gem

[nshgrizzly11-1 · 10/10 · 24 April 2009]

This is billed as a sci-fi flick about the struggle of good and evil. Don't believe it. It is not, it so much more. Who are you? who were you? Where did the two diverge? Can the thread ever be rejoined? This is a psychological, existential, social commentary, that is a cinematographic masterpiece.

Internal struggles, external struggles, is there redemption to be had, how much does one pay for a mistake, how do you come to terms with actions that cause guilt and shame.... Is that chain of events we call life reversible, or inertial and determined until the end? How so?

The political slam on capitalism and the analogy of drug addiction to that of power and greed are clearly contrast to true values of family and self worth. They are viewed through an old but effectively employed psychoanalytic lens. But hey are shown not told and you are the witness. This movie could serve as a model for treatment well beyond Freud's limited treatment modalities.

Existential issues of life, purpose, death and a hereafter, the quicksand of limbo land, they are all intricately woven in a drama of distorted time imagery, fresh vibrant music, and photography that is gripping, innovative, and alive while allegorical and metaphoric. The acting is superb, the cinematography is as good as anything West of Thomas Imbach and the music is so fresh and coherent that it is often the thread that holds seemingly disparate pieces uncomfortably in place until they are resolved. This is a brilliant film in all regards. See it. It is billed as sci-fi but is as human and humanistic as anything you will see.

Wow...1 star from a few...

[lazzeno · 7/10 · 22 November 2021]

Well, some people who write reviews here dont understand how to grade...1=well there are alot wich deserve hat grade..but not this one.

But when you see it is written by qcmhwcgh..........well you know he7she7it is a serious guy...right..Its like the new wheel of time...one or ten ..cmon guys... Enogh ranting..A film that made me think in a good way+ diffrent..Worth a watch (If your IQ is above 65 and your age is above 15............) Cheers...

Pretentious Nonsense

[tomodlin · 1/10 · 17 November 2009]

I have trusted the rating system on IMDb for years, though I've never bothered to register before.

I do so today only to balance out the ridiculous reviews for this horse muck of a movie.

It's terrible! There is literally nothing good to say about it. I duly stuck with it after the first 20 mins (as advised on other reviews). I'm not sure what they all think happened after 20 minutes, but whatever it is, I didn't see it.

Ink is so bad, I felt the need to register to moan about it.

Don't watch it. It's just not worth it. Do some washing and watch the machine for a couple of hours. You'll have more fun and the plot will be better.

The other reviewers must, must, must be part of some campaign to get this recognised. I've seen more entertaining stains in my bathroom.

I would happily sit and extract my own toenails with a taser rather than watch this again.

Seriously, I'm dead on the inside. I just want to adopt the foetal position and cry for my mummy.

Insanely good

[mathiassorrow · 9/10 · 22 October 2020]

Fair notice, I generally avoid low budget indie movies, even more so with fantasy/sci fi flix. I just get sick of watching 20 or so budget movies to, maybe, find one that is actually watchable, let alone good. Ink however is an absolute masterclass on how to make a fantasy movie without a multimillion dollar budget. Great story, the actors make you genuinely care about the characters, just a beautifully done film start to finish. I would recommend this film, maybe keep a handkerchief handy though.

A future glimpse at movie making in Denver Colorado

[amutnavi · 7/10 · 22 May 2013]

Let me start by saying, being from Denver, I have a bias. This film was shot entirely in Colorado - a rarity, since Colorado State has been slow to give production studios the tax incentives they need. This is changing, and the change is welcome. Most movies taking place in Colorado, up until recently, were shot elsewhere.

At a $250K budget, this movie tries to do A LOT! So I respect the effort Jamin Winans went through to make it, and make Denver look like a little Manhattan of the West. The mountain scenes are ethereal too (shot in Crested Butte, the grove of white-barked Aspen is only known to people who've been to the high country in fall - it's a welcome site to a Colorado native.

There is enough substance here to justify 20x the budget, and this is perhaps where the movie falls short. It might have been better served to release it in three parts - each with a moderately higher budget. This would have allowed for a richer back-story and character development of the Storytellers, the Incubi and how drifters like Ink are transmuted from reality into an alternate plane of reality.

Despite its shortcomings of fast cuts, and soap-opera acting ... it's worth a watch. Especially if you're from Colorado - or if you've ever wanted to visit. This movie signifies a new beginning for Colorado-based movie productions. We have everything here - except an ocean (wait, does Chatfield lake count? :-)

Good grief

[steveq135 · 1/10 · 24 November 2010]

This film is the celluloid equivalent of the emperors new clothes. I watched it because of the buzz associated with it and its high rating on IMDb. It is without doubt one of the most pretentious , tedious pieces of film making it has ever been my misfortune to witness. This film isn't half as clever as it thinks it is , with narrative jumps , flash cuts , awful acting and laughable 'scripting'. It may be that this is meant to be esoteric and I'm just too dim to accept it as a construct , but I think it's fundamentally challenging the audience to care despite itself and I just didn't. The basic premise is good , if only they had executed it better , and made it watchable rather then risible.

Avoid at all costs , if you want weird quality film making watch City of Lost Children instead.