Ink (2009) Online

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I had the great pleasure of seeing 'Ink' today at the Starz Film Center in Denver. I had only heard of the movie a few days ago after some internet exploring. From the moment it starts, the film grabs you as you try to figure out what exactly is going on. This goes on for the first half before coming all together during the second half. The story was absolutely heart-touching and I really felt for the characters in the movie. The cinematography was unlike anything I've ever seen before, seeming like a dream the whole time your watching it. Everything about this film was unique and creative - things I would've never imagined. It is hard to describe my experience without giving anything away, but everything about this movie was magnificent - considering it's a small, independent film. It was filmed entirely in my state of Colorado, putting me right into the action as I recognize the locations they are.

After the showing, two actors (the man who plays Jacob and the little girl, Quinn) were there answering questions along with one of the producers. This was especially exciting as I learned some very interesting things about the movie. For instance, none of the dialogue was actually recorded with the video. It was all add-libbed during post-production - amazing considering you couldn't tell at all during the film.

If you want to see a movie with great production value and a great story that isn't in mainstream Hollywood, go see this movie. It's ten times better then some good Hollywood movies I've seen recently.

let me start with what i don't like; the blind guy and how his eyes cross taped. the idea is interesting but the tape was so shiny new, it wasn't fitting with the enigmatic/dreamy atmosphere. i mean, it was like, they just bought a black electronics tape from the next hardware store and applied on actor's face just in two seconds and patted him from his back and sent to set or something... i don't know. and ink's nose, i keep watching the movie my eyes on it... when it is going to fall? anyway, i loved this movie so much, i'm going to ignore these "little things", yes. besides, incubus folk and their headset was freaking superb. fighting scenes and the music was so in rhyme, it doesn't felt any violent, it felt like art, like, forces of universe in action, the evil and the good, yin and yang. and as an indie film, this make a good blend of happy children's fantasy and dark science fiction. some butterfly effect, some the crow, some pan's labyrinth and even some x-men... if you are not a freaking perfectionist, you will love this movie, it's full of little beautiful fresh ideas.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ink follows the journey of eight year old Emma (Quinn Hunchar), who falls into a coma after she is kidnapped into a dreamworld by a mysterious monster, called Ink. In the real world Emma gets hospitalized after falling into a coma, but in the dreamworld she is being used by Ink as a pawn in a metaphysical war being fought between the forces of light and darkness.The forces of light are a group of people who give dreams to the living, known as storytellers, warriors, fighters, navigators and pathfinders. The forces of darkness, the Incubus, concurrently give nightmares to the living. Now Emma's only hope lies within her negligent father (Chris Kelly), a successful business man, as the forces of light cross over to the real world and try to alter his path to save Emma... What a crazy ride. Ink is unlike any other movie I know.Its definitely the most original movie I have ever seen and visually, it is quite stunning,the special effects really enhance the film.They're not state of the art GCI but they are tremendously effective.The soundtrack is wonderful and very suiting.The acting was good, specially Quinn Hunchar,this little girl is not only beautiful but she played her role with a maturity way beyond her age.The story its kind of a grown up fairy-tale and has an epic feeling to it,unfortunately it gets too confusing and complex at times,its one of those films you have to watch more then one time to fully comprehend everything that happened.My other complaint is the following: I think the movie is a bit all over the place.It has many great ideas and elements but it ends up being a bit messy.Having said that I'm amazed by what this director was able to accomplish with a low budget and probably not many resources.I see a LOT of great ideas here and I see a lot of potential.If Jamin Winans can do a film like this with this budget, I could only imagine what he would do with a Hollywood budget. In conclusion,Ink is a crazy and surreal journey that deserves to be seen.A very original and refreshing piece of work and the director is one to watch!

7/10

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.

Stiff acting from most of the cast and terrible dialogue are two of the worst transgressions this film made. In one scene, I there were 30-40 clichés strung together spewing from every character. Many others are found throughout the film. This is on par with one of the worst writing jobs I've ever heard.

I can overlook the constant over-exposed shots, the cheap sets and the inexpensive method in which the film is shot, but simply tell us a good story. It fails in this endeavor. I end up not caring halfway through because they haven't sold me on it, and well...I've checked out. I cease to care, and still I persisted. I was not rewarded.

The trivial nature that the film seemed to adopt early on with the fighting initiated it's descent into tedium. At the moment the actors actually started speaking, the careening steepened. I didn't believe anyone. They had not convinced me. Neither through the words they spoke or in the nature in which they spoke them. I thought some of the characters were just awful. Especially the father. Without revealing anything, his motivations seemed quite obtuse. Once again, I didn't believe it.

I cannot completely condemn this film as I liked some of the elements it had to offer: the blown bill sequence, the flat panel glasses guys, and the flicker effects were among them. The little girl was the only one I believed. She did well.

Ultimately, I felt like I was watching a student's film. Nice idea, very poor execution. Do not go out of your way for this one. Isn't there a Seinfeld rerun on? For effort and a couple of clever concepts, I can only muster a 4 of 10.

I just had the pleasure of seeing this film at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood and I was blown away. I haven't seen something this original in ages. INK is film like no other. The acting, the storyline, the world, the editing, the music, EVERYTHING about this film took me by surprise. Its like nothing I've ever seen before. It does not do it any justice to compare it to other films, but it takes a little from Brazil, Sin City, and maybe even a little from the Matrix, but it is truly a world of its own. And amazingly, in this dark and sinister world there is still so much heart and emotion that never gets lost or goes over the top. This film is destined to be a cult hit and pave the way for a whole new genre of film-making.

I watch a lot of horror and sci-fi movies, including the low budget B movies. I watch the B movies looking for those rare gems, and I can tell you without a doubt that this is not one of them. In fact, it speaks volumes that I couldn't sit through very much of this flick, maybe 10 minutes is all I could endure. I was fooled by the rating this movie got, and the description sounded good too. I don't understand why films like this even get made much less receive ratings usually reserved for Hollywood blockbusters. I think that the demographic of movie watchers that go for this kind of dribble are also the sort more likely to write reviews, so it ends up being a lopsided thing. Well I'm here to balance the scales and tell people who actually enjoy well acted, well written, and well directed movies not to bother with this pile of rubbish. I've seen better amateur Youtube videos by people with handy-cams. If all a film needs for you to fall in love with it is a child, then you'll love this one, but if you expect substance, you won't find it here.

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.

This is a great low budget fantasy film. For what was obviously a ridiculously low budget, they have made a complex, dense and inventive film about dreams, monsters and family. Wonderful use of Denver for the locations (I'm a native, we don't get to see D-Town in flicks too often. Love it!) and intelligent, effective effects work really helped to flesh it out. It is hampered at times by the low budget. It was obviously filmed using medium quality digital cameras, and the writing and acting were a bit dodgy at times. But overall, the story and the feel of the world they created almost completely overcomes these failings. I really think that if word spreads, this could be come the next Donnie Darko-esq cult hit. Powerful, entertaining and imaginative, if you are thinking about watching this, don't let the low budget look stop you. This movie is definitely worth your time.

If I had just one word to sum up "Ink", it would have to be "Amateurish". 10 minutes into this clearly low budget affair, I thought to myself "this is more like a made for TV programme". 10 minutes later and I was revising that thought further to say "children's TV".

What plot there is concerns a young girl (the not too bad Quinn Hunchar, channelling Heather O'Rourke in Poltergeist) who is trapped in limbo between the real World and the World of nightmares, thanks to a shadowy abductor known as "Ink".

Now considering that he is the star of the show, not too much money has been spent on the costume of old Mr Ink. He wears shabby old rags which he has clearly nabbed off "Mr Susan" from the Mighty Boosh, and a ludicrous fake nasal appendage; presumably borrowed from Monty Python's "Raymond Luxury Yacht" character.

But costume-wise he still fares reasonably well compared to one other character, whose blindness is signified by his wearing four pieces of black duct tape across his eyes. Feel the budget!

Set design fares little better, with Ink journeying to a halfway house between Earth and Hell which I can only describe as Cr*ppyPixelWorld, and then finally arriving at his less than nightmarish destination; PlasticBagWorld.

Along the way Ink must repeatedly fight off good guy dream warriors, who want to snatch the child back again. Tedious fight scenes abound. And to further pan his road trip out, he meets pointless other characters; e.g. a woman who is seemingly introduced solely to give someone else a haircut. I'm not sure why.

The plot, with it's rambling about "Storytellers", "Pathfinders" & "Incubi" seemed frankly just a tiresome load of old tosh to me. But some younger viewers may dig it.

Furthermore the (over)acting by the adult actors was, for me, both cartoonish & dismaying. Especially when compared to that of a film like "City of God" for example, where young kids were plucked out of a Brazilian ghetto, shoved in front of a camera, and performed incredibly. How can the disparity be so great?

On the plus side though, I found the soundtrack of the movie, seemingly done my the film's director, to be a quite decent affair, with plenty of moving electronic string pads soaring away. And the nightmare baddies with TVs for faces actually looked rather good.

In summary, I feel slightly guilty for not liking this move, as it is clearly a small independent affair, and movie makers have to start somewhere I guess. But anyone wanting to see a Sci-Fi shot on a shoestring budget should perhaps consider "Another Earth" instead.