IMDb > Ink (2009/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Ink
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Ink More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Interleaved...
Reviews from users who voted this title less than 7.0.
Reviews from users who voted this title less than 7.0.
Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
Index 65 matching reviews (218 reviews in total) 

24 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

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

1/10
Author: isomrb-imdb from United States
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Good grief

1/10
Author: steveq135 from United Kingdom
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Stunningly awful.

1/10
Author: Vincent from Ireland
31 July 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Surreal, Disjointed, Overrated and Unwatchable

1/10
Author: The CyberHippie
29 November 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

So bad it's awful

1/10
Author: squelcho
5 May 2011

As noted elsewhere, the relentless "10 stars!!!" shilling is enough to make you grind your teeth flat, but when you try to watch this lamentable piece of hooey, you'll want to scoop your eyes out with a rusty spork and wash your brain with a cruise missile.. It's relentless garbage, dressed up in dreadful gimmicky post production, and looks like the kind of nonsense a no budget student could throw together in a week on After FX or Final Cut with a few overused plug-ins. There are no redeeming features at all. The acting is rank amateur, the scripting is non existent, the cinematography sucks big time, and the direction is laughably inept. Quite who these aspartame-raddled shills are who are hyping this to the heavens, well.... I'd be amazed if someone as untalented as the director actually had that many friends. PR budget bigger than the movie itself? Looks suspiciously like it.

In a contest to make the worst film possible with the limited means and imagination at their disposal, this outranks even Gymkata. And we all know how "wonderful, amazing, groundbreaking, and visceral" that was. If you can retain the will to live through the entire movie, your fortitude is to be admired. I hope the doctors bring you out of the coma soon.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 111 people found the following review useful:

Amateur hour(s)

1/10
Author: conveniantjim from United Kingdom
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A cliché wrapped in digital glow (for some strange reason)

1/10
Author: Nev Christ
17 June 2015

The glow... Why? To cover up the poor quality of the image? At one point a character says "anything can look good in the right light." This film proves otherwise.

Most of the what's bad about the film has been mentioned in other reviews, but I just wanted to add that the fact that the film has a low budget ($250,000 apparently - not as low as I would have guessed after seeing it), doesn't excuse the terrible performance, directing and technical execution of the film.

Waste of time for all involved. Anything that could have been watchable was blitzed and mangled under a haze of digital glow, jarring, obvious edits and clumsy sound.

Just avoid it.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Sweet Fancy Moses

1/10
Author: Kat Dish from United States
7 February 2012

I'm not sure which I'm more astounded by, the abject awfulness of this movie or the glowing reviews to the contrary. Like other negative reviews I have read, I'll agree there's just nothing good about this movie. Except maybe the young girl who played Emma. Hers was the only halfway believable portrayal in the movie. There may have been a glimmer of what could have been a compelling storyline, but it completely missed the mark.

It was like watching bad fan fiction written by emo teenagers come to life in celluloid. Ink should be mandatory viewing for beginning film students on how NOT to make a movie. It's just that astonishingly bad. Sucktacular. Craptastic. Truly awful.

The only thing that could have possibly redeemed this movie for me would have been if Tim Curry came out in the final scene dressed in drag and lead the cast in a rousing rendition of "The Time Warp", thereby letting the audience know that the movie was supposed to be ridiculously pretentious and cheesy.

On second thought, not even Dr. Frank-n-Furter could have saved this movie.

That said, I will probably watch this movie again. Because it's sort of like eating a McRib sandwich when you know better from past experience. You simply need to convince yourself that it really was as bad as you remembered the first time.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Deluded, superficial, anti-humanistic movie.

1/10
Author: Supar mana from Indonesia
14 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

While interesting technically, i must say that the entire idea was based on some anti-human view of the world. This movie doesn't really care much about the reality of human being. Ink (main character) was portrayed as a long nose, ugly, which what a man will be when he does not choose between "good" or "evil": saying there's nothing could possibly be appreciated in between, just "fixed". Nothing humane about that! This film IS about the old stupid good and evil thoughts and naively constructed but sublimely included inside the superstructure of the story. The story was made by people who don't really have understanding of how the world really works. No existentialism like other reviewer wrote. No social comprehension. No psychology. Nothing. Just plain good and evil with new costume. It even felt evangelical.

I must urge the writer to learn some more about human nature. Read philosophy. Anything.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Don't Believe the Hype!

1/10
Author: Imabadmormon from United States
10 January 2010

The ONLY amazing aspect to this movie appears to be the unbelievable gorilla hype machine that has bombarded these boards. I mean people will look back at this in years to come and compare to it the Blair Witch's (well maybe not)grassroots hype tactics.

Do NOT believe the majority of these reviews, Ink is not the next cult classic. It is amateurish at best. Grand ideas but no budget, actors or script for execution. It is painful to sit through. The "fight scenes" look like excess celluloid from a Mighty Morhin Power Rangers episode and that might be generous. The film on a whole is slightly above the quality of entries you would find on Youtube but not nearly as original as some.

I am not telling you not to watch this movie but I write this review to temper the over abundance of propaganda.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history