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.

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.

A friend recommended this as being an exceptional film with great characters and a wonderful, intelligent plot; at least I now know not to trust his opinion again! There is simply nothing good in this film. The script seems to have been written by a twelve year old, the dialog is stilted and unconvincing and generally only one step away from being completely moronic. The "special effects" are terrible, if you can't afford good effects then don't use any, cheap and nasty soap opera effects are annoying and distracting. On the soap opera theme, the acting was bad soap opera quality, none of the cast seemed at ease or delivered anything of note, maybe that's the fault of the script but surely they could have tried harder. To tie this all together the direction was also awful! Why would continuous shots, and sounds, of a screaming child be interesting to anyone? Genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen.

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.

Self indulgent tripe like this may be the start of a great career for someone, but most likely it is just proof that amateur dramatics is best consumed after a great deal of alcohol, and it's best to listen to independent voices rather than the ever supportive encouragement of your mother. "benjamin-holland" puts it perfectly, saying "Ink is like watching an episode of The Power Rangers. It feels like a student film in nearly every respect. Most of the actors seem as if they were picked at random from a crowd, the cinematography (although, I'm certain it was a stylistic choice) is often flat and over-exaggerated, the soundtrack is tactless in its use at times..........Unless all the reviewers are the filmmakers' friends, I don't understand the praise.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not sure what to make of this film. Its the story of a father and daughter who are caught in what is effectively a battle between the dream world and the nightmare world. Its an attempt at a grand fantasy thats probably closer to Neil Gaiman and Lenny Henry's Neverwhere than anything else with outsides crossing over into some other world a step or two a way from our own. Shot on the cheap on what appears to be in a digital format the film more often then not seems to have better ideas then the ability to execute them. The whole thing is okay, but far from anything special. Its not something that I need ever see again and makes me wonder what all of the fuss (what little there is) seems to be about.

I've never felt luckier to live in Denver. Ink, filmed in Denver, had one of its first screenings tonight and despite going in with no particular expectations, I was completely floored. Nothing about the film indicates that it is a lower-budget, independent film, except perhaps its freedom to pursue such a surprising and ambitious concept. Though it was in production at the same time as these films, it strikes me as mixing the best parts of Pan's Labyrinth and Nightwatch. However, these two excellent films in their own right simply do not match up in my mind. Ink is visually and aurally stunning. The blurring the lines of reality present an allegorical tale that is emotionally gripping and philosophically challenging. I'm not easily taken to high praise, but I really think this may be THE movie to see in 2009. I just hope people get the chance to see it.