366 Weird Movies reviews the new low-budget, underground fantasy sensation INK (http://366weirdmovies.com/43-ink-2009/)! I know 3mnkids is a fellow fan of this fast-rising cult movie, so I thought she especially might like to check out the review (which also contains a dissenting opinion).
This actually looks interesting, although I'd never heard of it before at all. Plus, that was a very, very informative review. :thumbup:
We're of the same mind regarding this film, Rev. Powell.
I just recently watched it because Netflix is pushing it rather strongly.
The film itself is another example of Gaiman-esque (or if you prefer, Barker-esque) magical realism. I disagree with the dissenting opinion, the story is rather straight-forward, at least in its genre. The "a-ha" moments are pre-ordained if you are used to this story-telling type of thinking.
Not that the story doesn't fall into story pitfalls. One day I'd like to see a high-business film that really knows what goes on behind corporate doors, rather than one that recapitulates what all we outsiders imagine it is like.
The film is obviously very low budget, but for what it lacks in money it makes up for in visual inventiveness. The faux-Matrix film style, and the stylized images work like gangbusters. If you're buying into the film, the final hospital scenes are some very powerful stuff.
I did buy into the film, because it lended power to the idea the importance of everyday life. We all go through tests and initiations every moment of every day. What the film does is recontextualize the emotional impact of our critical decisions as a never-ending battle between good and evil. Everyday life is important, not a lesser struggle, even if we don't recognize it. The film does not posit a meaningless fantasy with no rules, because the only rule is that the main character (and let's not spoil things here) has to at some point choose the right path. Every moment of "ordinary life" is a test of constant initiation.
Well, that's very high-minded. I will also once again say the film is very low budget. They did an admirable job with their very ambitious work, but they don't escape their limitations. Some (much?) of the acting leads a lot to be desired, and they made a lot of their sets with no money, but this is obviously the work of people with a limited budget. It brings you out of the movie.
Still, I really liked it, and am curious to see what these filmmakers get up to.
Thank you for posting this. :thumbup: great review. I will say that I disagree with the "At times, the low-tech effects can be distracting" line. For me, its part of its charm. :smile: