Ink (2009) Movie Review
Ink (2009) Movie, Sci-Fi Movie News, Sci-Fi Reviews — By Albert Walker on September 20, 2009
“Ink” is a dark, modern-day fairy tale in which our nighttime world is inhabited by two factions of unseen, supernatural beings. On the side of good are the Storytellers, pretty twentysomethings who come to us as we sleep and give us happy (though clichéd) dreams. On the dark side are the Succubi, men with creepy faces that are only seen as black and white images through panes of glass permanently bolted to their chests. As you might imagine, the Succubi are the ones responsible for our nightmares.
Another mysterious creature exists apart from both groups: a hunchbacked, ragged character with an enormous nose who (for unknown reasons) is called Ink. In a bid to join the Succubi, Ink steals the soul of a little girl, holding her hostage in dreamland while her physical body remains comatose in the real world. The Storytellers stage a rescue attempt, which seems to hinge on breaking through to the other side and getting in touch with the little girl’s estranged father.
But the actual story is really beside the point in a movie like this. To director-writer-editor Jamin Winans, having a plot seems almost like a necessary evil, a hurdle to cross to achieve the goal he’s really after: wowing you with cool images. Indeed, there are a number of visually stunning shots in this film, and Winans employs just about every effects trick in the book in his quest to impress you despite the low budget.
And interesting concepts certainly abound in “Ink”, including how the Storytellers and Succubi all exist outside of time, and can move into the past and future at will. And as the little girl’s father reflects upon his life, there are a lot of impressionistic choices in lighting and editing that make scenes play out like dreams. But we’re never allowed to wrap our heads around the whole thing, because director Winans has intentionally made a difficult and overcomplicated film, most likely in an attempt to emulate other cult movies that value style over substance, like “Donnie Darko”, “The Matrix”, and “Brazil”.
But while “Matrix” had its Neo, “Brazil” had its Sam Lowry, and “Donnie Darko” had its title character, “Ink” has nothing remotely approaching a strong protagonist. We don’t sympathize with the Storytellers, we don’t sympathize with the title character, and we don’t even begin to get into the head of the suffering father until well past the one-hour mark. With no one to identify with, there’s no sense of purpose to any of these events, and the movie just drags.
We never care if various characters achieve their goals, nor do we really know what those goals are. Why are the Storytellers compelled to bring us good dreams? Why do the Succubi feel the need to give us nightmares? Why does one Storyteller wear black electrical tape over his eyes and constantly count to himself? Why are these two groups of dream-makers at odds? And why is the kidnapping of a young girl such a huge event in Dreamland that it nearly touches off a war between the two groups? We never get a clue.
Winans tries hard to amaze with wire-fu and flash frames and a multitude of filters, but it mostly comes off as a transparent attempt to make cheap footage look more cinematic. And with a big fight scene in the first ten minutes, the movie promises a lot of action, but never delivers. In fact, there are really only two action scenes in the entire film. The second involves the Succubi removing those panes of glass to reveal glowing eyes, an image that would be a lot more notable if it wasn’t so reminiscent of the music video for “Total Eclipse of the Heart”. (And while we’re on the subject of ‘80s videos, the “black and white images seen through panes of glass” is something straight out of the “Take on Me” video. Perhaps the real problem here is that the director-writer spent too much time dreaming about music videos.)
“Ink” is ambitious, but a handful of good ideas and cool-looking shots can’t redeem a confusing, messy story and community theater-level acting. To aspiring filmmakers, I’m sure the temptation is great to create a big mind-screw movie like other memorable cult films, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with telling a simple, straightforward, linear story. As “Ink” proves, that’s a skill that really should be mastered before a filmmaker attempts more challenging fare.
Jamin Winans (director) / Jamin Winans (screenplay)
CAST: Chris Kelly … John
Jessica Duffy … Liev
Quinn Hunchar … Emma
Jeremy Make … Jacob
Jennifer Batter … Allel
Eme Ikwuakor … Gabe
Shelby Malone … Sara
Digg It
Stumble It
Tweet It
delicious
RSS
36 Comments
All I can say is watch the movie again. There are basic ideas that you did not understand that were explained in the movie. Well, first of all the “nightmare” givers are called Incubi not Succubi. Also, there is a scene in the movie where it clearly states why “Jacob” counts to himself. Plus, there are many different times in the movie where it is touched upon. I have seen the film, actually multiple times and I understand the film. The movie actauly ties itself together wonderfully. You put Donnie Darko up there, for some people a confusing movie the first time around. What I advise is watch the movie again since you have already watched it one time through and see if it is a better experience for you. All of the times you said that it didn't make sense the whole way through, I bet you it will the second time around. Just my word of advise. Give it a try….
I want to inform you that I have watched this movie multiple times and this is a beautiful film, and it is one of the best films, if not the best film that I have seen in 2009. Beautiful piece of work by Jamin Winans and Co.
Movie made perfect sense to me, explained everything quite well in fact. I say this is among the best movies i have ever seen, It’s up there with “The Fountain” and “The Jacket” etc. They explained the guy’s eyes, Its obvious why they give good/bad dreams. And the plot of the story was great. I agree with Sarah M. completely :P.
I saw the movie this evening and you nailed it with your comment. I understood it from the beginning and actually came to tears at the end. I found it beautiful and touching. I don’t believe it to be like any of the references in the review, or see it as being some sort of science fiction movie. I believe Ink is more than that.
All I can say is I loved it and will watch again.
Does some one pay Mr. Walker?
Awesome Movie!!!
Mr. Walker, please do not write any more reviews for movies you did not watch.
This film did not deserve such a harsh review. It was actually quite stunning and had a very deep social commentary if you only pay attention to it. I think someone needs to “shake the s*** out of” Albert Walker.
It’s unfortunate that this review was written. It is obvious that Albert Walker did not pay attention at all while watching this film. Mr. Walker mistook the word “Incubus” (which was used numerous times throughout the film) for “Succobi”. That shows me that he was obviously distracted while watching. Sarah M. is spot on. All of Mr. Walker’s questions are answered in the film. As far as this film leaving you confused, I disagree with that. I have seen movies that are far more confusing and difficult to follow (Primer, Donnie Darko, Memento to name a few) than Ink. I only had to watch Ink once to completely understand what was going on whereas the aforementioned films I had to watch at least twice.
I will agree with Mr. Walker on a couple of points and I will also counter those points.
1) There was no real connection with any of the characters until past the hour mark (far too long). Although, I can imagine that this would be very hard to do with characters existing in three different dimensions.
But the connection was eventually made despite that challenge. Once it was made (if you were not talking on your cell phone or cooking dinner while watching), you realized what message the story was really telling us. Sometimes we don’t realize exactly how important each decision in life we make are until it’s too late. Sometimes we need someone to “shake the s*** out of us.”
2) The acting was definitely Community Theatre level acting. This is something that typically makes me not enjoy a film. However, the story was so intertwined and well told that my interest was kept the entire way through and made me only wonder what this film could have been with professional acting talent. The cinematography for this film was absolutely stunning. The over exposure throughout the majority of the film gave it a wonderfully surreal feel. The under exposure during scenes containing anger (most notably the office scene) fear and evil added to the dramatic visual effects you’re bombarded with throughout. All of this distracts you from the fact that the acting is not all that great. Now if a film can make you forget about poor acting, that is a sign of a very strong story and beautiful visuals. All of this was done with a budget of only $250,000 (please remember that “The Room” had a budget of over $7,000,000 and it was horrendous).
Overall this film was a stunningly beautiful, intriguing, socially aware “mind-screw” that was very well done even with a limited budget.
I will end this comment like I began it…
Mr. Walker, please do not write any more reviews for movies you did not watch.
This review is wrong on so many levels . So many that I would have to write a novel to get them all across … This fellow should not be allowed to have an opinion at the very least of this movie .. It is clearly out of reach of his understanding .. Though he does have a flare for writing which always merits my respect because I hardly can write . I will simply say , if you have a chance to watch this movie please do . And whether or not you have immediate gratification from it is almost beside the point , because in the long run this movie will be sending thoughts into you that may later save your life . Yes quite bold of me to say , but is so much more the truth than the review I just read ..
A
I agree with all the other comments. Please don’t write reviews. I disagreed with you so much that I just didn’t even continue on. Your review is simply unworthy of my reading. By the way, the correct title for the nightmare givers is the Incubi.
This is absurd. Yes, the movie suffers badly from it’s acting, but the film clearly explains some of those things you were confused about, and wealth of ideas aside, its very simply and straightforwardly told. Harry Potter is more confusing than this.
Possibly the best film of 2009, I found it completely profound! Watch this film.
Many of the answers this reviewer did not see are indeed there… and those that are not make the film even better, who wants it all given on a plate? Not having all the answers is reflective of life. This film literally brought me to tears which is rare.
Ink deserves more exposure, there are only a handful of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and its not even listed on Metacritic!
Well done for producing such a piece of art on such a low budget, a great remedy for all the expensive formulaic crap Hollywood gives us.
If you like film and want to see something fresh give it a go, even I was wondering what the hell I had got myself watching during the first 10 mins, but am so glad I persevered! It will shake the s*it out of you!
Might as well make it 7 for 7 – quit reviewing movies…Either that or stick to something you actually CAN get your head around. Maybe there’s a cartoon or something with subtitles? How about Transformers 2?
That said, and as said, it was a profoundmovie and definitely worth watching. There’s little said about it so far so I didn’t expect much and I’m glad now that there wasn’t – I had no real idea what I was in for.
A well told story with more heart than I’ve seen in a long, long time.
I agree with others on this board-this smells of lazy journalism, and missed the plot entirely,
Watch the film again and read your own review or at least watch it once as i think you have not even sat and watched it at all, as your review is way to harsh and clumsy.
I have read a few reviews that are almost the same word for word..lack of intellect is no excuse for sloppy reviews.
I hope lots of people watch this film and see it for what it is, and the little girl who played Emma deserves credit for her role
A good film with a good story for a change better than most the drivel that has been screened with big budgets, definitely the best of 2009
Keep your reviews Mr Walker for your tea parties of one
Every once in a while I come across something interesting, not very often ‘though.
I’m one of those skeptical persons who think (wrongly) everything has been done and said in the movie industry, all we see is repeats or sequels with more action scenes, special effects and louder sounds.
Ink is a beautiful, original and touching. I too, mostly disagree with Mr Walker’s review.
I would give it a “Wow” rating. I hope we’ll see more of Winans’s work in the future.
I think it says something when there are this many replies to the review, and everyone of them agrees that the reviewer didn’t really do his job very well.
Ink was incredible. Not perfect by any means, but the acting was probably it’s only weak point.