Altered.The film is about a group of crazy alien-hunting nut-jobs who, when on a hunting trip capture one of the evasive creatures and bring it back to their home. One of them claims to have been abducted before, and his an implant to prove it. Claiming that the alien mother-ship can track and follow him especially with them having a creature they lock themselves up in his garage for safety, and slowly begin to rot away at each other and the alien in the middle of the room.
The film is just bad. Just bad in general. It was avalible for instant play on Netflix one day, it was short, sounded cool and I was bored. From the director of The Blair Witch Project, a film that doesn't require much direction, and it shows. The film looks terrible, has a clunky feel, and a lot of the time nothing going on. The acting is bad as well from four unknowns who for the most part should remain unknown. It takes place in a garage which gives it a drab feel and a very boring atmosphere, with absoloutly no creepiness at all.
The only saving grace to the film is some decent special effects, which we hardly see. The film is stupid, slow, boring, and had terrible acting. Some cool alien special effects that we never see definatly cannot make up for all those mistakes. I should've known with this straight-to-dvd horror film, but alas against my better judgement I gave it a try, and it came back to bite me. Won't being doing it again anytime soon.
Coming in straight from 2006 is director Neil Marshall's horrific tale of The Descent. Neil Marshall, the previous writer and director of Dog Soldiers, made his return to film in a cave. Being one of the most positivly reviewed horror films of the past decade, by both fans and critcs alike, the real question was, does The Descent live up to the hype. While the film is now known all around the world, everyone should know that it is a majorly British film. With a mostly British cast, a British script, and was filmed in England and Scotland. All that for a movie set in America.
Now, before I officially begin this review you need to know a few things about this movie. Firstly it has two shockingly different endings. The European ending, and the American ending. The film was realesed nearly a year later in America than it was in European countrys. And upon test audience results, filmakers learned that most audiences on the western hemisphere found the original ending to dark. A small bit of editing fixed all that. I am here to tell you that I know both versions of the film, like the original ending more, and will be reviewing THAT film here today.
The story of The Descent is actually quite simple. It's about six women who go on an annual vaction in which they perform some sort of extreme sport, whether it be white water rafting, rock climbing, sky diving, it is always sure to be dangerously fun. So when the new year comes into effect they begin to plan their latest trip. They decide to hike up the Appalachin Mountains to go cave spelunking. Now for those of you who don't know, cave spelunking is when you repel down into the open mouth of an underground cave, and explore its trenches. So, once these women descend into the cave, they get trapped. And upon futher inspection, they realize that they are not alone in the frigid caverns.
I feel that the story for the film is great. I mean, though old, and pretty predictable, the setting of a cave is one that you hardly see anymore. Other than this film, it's hard for me to think of really other big ones that have come out in the past ten years. Anywho, a cave is the perfect place for a film to be set, it is a naturally creepy place because of all the cartoons we see as a kid, its cold, dark, wet, and the cave that was in this film (even though it was a set) was really good, because it had tight corners, and barely breathable air. And no matter how old you are, you're biggest fear, your worst nightmare, virtually everyone has some kind of fear of being stuck, not being able to move. The Descent takes your natural claustrophobia and exploits it, which is acutally more frightening than the beasts.
The acting in this film was decent. It wasn't spectacular, but I don't think that it really needed to be. Most scenes deal with six women in a cave. But, this is also where the acting hits its fault. Neil Marshall wanted to make the film with an only female cast because women talk about their feelings more than men do. So when it comes time to make these scenes become a reality, I lose faith in the film because I don't believe these women are fearing for their life. They are simply speaking lines, that you could tell someone had already written for them.
As for effects, the sets that were used for the caves were spectacular. I thought that they were real until I read that they were in fact sets on a studio. The blood in this film was extreme. I thank God, for, once again, for NEIL MARSHALL! He only used practical effects for the blood and gore in this film. Which is amazing because there is so much of it. And with the way most horror films are using are using blood and gore withe CGI, I just loved watching it. The only thing that I didn't like about the practical production was the actual monsters themselves. I wish that they would've stuck with darkness and claustrophobia for natural scares and tension, and left the monster to be implied. Since everyone has a natural fear of being stuck, the monsters kind of took away from natural scares, and a fear that the audience could relate to.
I appreciated the ending of this film and felt that it was an amazing addition to the film itself. It also, almost, made up for the lack of emotionality the charecters had. The ending was deep, heartfelt, and utterly disturbing. And I felt that it was the true ending, over the American version.
Overall, The Descent is one of the most intense, crazy, scary, frightening, well done, excellent, horror films of the last decade. The sequel is set to come out soon, and I am only somewhat excited to see, but I am for sure going to see whatever Neil Marshall does next.
To even begin with the film of Brazil, you need to know what happened behind the scenes. Much of which is still reported on as one of Hollywood's biggest calamities. The film was written and directed by former Monty Python animator Terry Gilliam. Gilliam's fantasy was bleak, dystopian, and very distant from what modern American's had recently seen in fantasy, with films like Alien. In Europe, Brazil had a running length of 142 minutes, where it was met with critical and commericial success. A major battle between the films creators, and the American distributor cut out major portions of the film, cutting it down significantly to 94 minutes. Gilliam feriously protested this, and without the consent of the studio showed the film to the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, where it won Best Picture, which then prompted the distributor to meet with Gilliam halfway, realesing a 131 minute version, which still performed poorly at the US box-office.
Much like the controversy behind the film, what happens in front of the camera is hard to follow, and understand. In a fictionalized version of Britain, Johnathan Pryce plays a man by the name of Sam Lowry, a low-ranking government official. Strangley enough, Sam constantly has fantasy daydreams of rescuing a damsal in distress. Sam is sent to to rectify a mistake, the governement accidently captured, and killed a man by the name of Harry Buttle, instead of suspected terrorist Harry Tuttle. When arriving at their home, Sam finds that a woman in the second floor, is an exact replica of the woman he has been dreaming about. Through a series of incidents, Sam meets up with both the mysterious woman, and the real Harry Tuttle, and soon becomes a wanted terrorist himself, and has to deal with this, his love life, and his plastic surgery addicted mother, all while trying to fix his air conditioning.
While it may sound like a comedy of errors, Brazil has got to be the best social, and political satire film, since Dr. Stranglove. Terry Gilliam has woven a very intense story here, and it certainly shows. While the film is largly a visual fantasy, and even some story elements are taken from classic fantasy story, the film is actually largly grounded in reality. Nothing seems to be going right for this character, even though he is just a low-ranking official. The film also delves into political satire, on both sides of the pond, with the film being based out of England, and largly poking fun at parliment. But also noting the failures of America's current political system. The film has a strangly modern feeling to it, even watching it now, with major sub-plots dealing with terrorist bombings, drug addiction, and plastic surgery.
"Here's your recepit for your husband, and my recepit for your recepit."
Now, the verison of the film that I saw, was the original 142 minute directors cut. Now, I am not saying that this film is just dark and bleak for fantasy, it truly is dark, and bleak, and even somewhat depressing by the end, especially what it has to say about the current human. Terry Gilliam is excellent at fantasy but what he does even better is reality. And that is where Brazil succeeds for the most part. This is one of the best films I have seen this year. The top three from my first twenty-one reviews definatly include Brazil. And while I did like it a lot, the film does come with a few minor problems, but first with the positives. Johnathan Pryce gives a stellar performance as Sam, and was very good at what the role was. A man, with too much to handle, and tons of stress, slowly unwraveling is a lot harder to do than most would think. Roberto De Niro does a great job in a realtivly small role, not really that small, but for a movie of this length. It is a bit of a switch from the regular De Niro, and a nice switch indeed. One of the best performances though comes from Kathrine Helmond, who plays Sam's insane mother, addicted to plastic surgery and fashion, she provides much of the humor of the film, and much of the satire, which goes hand-in-hand all to well.
One of my minor nit-picks with the film comes from its length, running two hours and twenty-four minutes long does seem to show at some points, and there are many times when I thought: 'oh, I guess that's the end', and it just kept on running. It never seemed to end (though it makes sense now why), but it was sometimes, hard to pay attention. This is not helped by the fact that the story is very, very thick, with lots of characters, and names, and times, and people, and things, and sub-plots all revolving around one person, making the whole thing seem very crowded, this is deeped, again with the Tuttle/Buttle mix-up, that the viewer constantly has to sort out mentally.
Amazingly though, Brazil is still an excellent film. Faults like those usually ruin a movie for me, but Brazil had a strange dreamlike effect on me, and was a thrill to watch. The film has meaning, and passion, and thought, and people we can relate to, all while surrouding itself in an incredible visual package that makes it a pleasure to sit through. Things like convuluted story, and running length seem like small complaints when you look at the picture as a whole. Terry Gilliam has created something special here, and I hope he comes back to dramas, and satires similair to this film. The cast, direction, and writing are all great. Topped off with excellent costumes, sets, cineamatography, lighting, and score. Brazil, is truly, a film to behold.
Okay, before we start anything here, can we talk about how awesome this one-sheet is? (One-sheet for those who don't know, is the industry word for poster). For me, this is the perfect kind of movie poster. It's simple. Has the title. Has the realese date. Catches the viewers attention, and you pretty much know what it is going to be about. I've been looking forward to this movie for a long time, even before it was officialy announced. Why and how you ask? Let me explain.
Back into 2003, the directors of this film, the Spierig Brothers, made a little independent zombie film called Undead. It had a budget of around $1 million, and was given limited realese, along with some festival screenings. The film sold incredibly well on DVD, and while not being a great movie by any means, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. Now, six years later, the Brothers are back again, this time with vampires and $30 million. I heard they were making a movie about a world overrun by vampires, about a year after this was announced, I saw the Daybreakers trailer, and basically, I had a freak-out.
Now, in case you don't know, Daybreakers takes the premise of your typical zombie and vampire films, and turns it on its head. The world has been virtually overrun by vampires. Not crazy, insane, brainless vampires, but vamps that run buisinesses, and drive, and drink blood coffee. People that do not get enough blood, go crazy and turn into your run-of-the-mill brainless vampire. There are a few humans left in the world, and those who are, simply try to survive. Unfourtanetly for the vampire society, the human population is almost extinct, and they are running out of blood, so soon, every will be "Underdwelers", going crazy, ravenous, and consuming all.
"I don't touch human blood."
For a weird horror genre-bender, Daybreakers actually has a fairly nice cast attached to it. Ethan Hawke plays our main vampire, with Sam Neill as the evil corporation executive. Then we have our heroes, played by Claudia Karvan and Willem Dafoe. Surprisingly, the cast does fairly well for the most part. Ethan Hawke does a fine job as our main character, and Willem Dafoe is always fun, especially in supporting roles.
The Spierig Brothers (Michael and Peter) do a good job for the most part, adapting their script to the big screen. Unfourtanetly for them, they aren't the best of writers, and these wonderful actors are given some pretty bad dialouge to read. Most of the effects are done decently, and there is a substanstial amount of gore in the film as well. The only problem is, the entire film takes place in one town, which would be fine, but the entire world is suppose to be overrun, and all we ever see is the tiny little town. Also, a good surprise, the Brothers managed to fit a little political message in here as well, and hopefully people will pick up on this, with the healthcare bill just being past and all.
Overall, Daybreakers was a fun goofy ride. It was a film about vampires taking over the world, and thankfully, it knew what it was, and never took itself to seriously. The make-up, and visual effects are done rather nicely for a moderate budget, and they had some very good actors to play some interesting roles. Unfourtanetly, the budget was a little to small for the scope of the project, and the dialouge is a little weak. But like I always say, there is a difference between a good movie, and a fun movie, and Daybreakers was definatly a fun ride.
Okay, by this point, you've either heard of Moon, or you haven't. The film was near completely devoid of any major critical attention outside the blog-o-sphere, and where it was given the spotlight it didn't have much time. Bloggers and online filmcritics across the globe came together to celebrate this little sci-fi gem, and gave it a unanimous 'thumbs up' after it premiered at the Tribeca film festival last year. This film has a ton of support around it, and if you pay attention to the online community, you may even see a little hype being created about it. But the question is the same, indie film or not. Does it live up to standards?
Before we get into the real review process of this film, lets just take a look at some of the raw talent behind it, because it is backed very strongly by a few people. First up is Duncan Jones, the director and co-writier. While his name my not seem like much at first, just wait until you hear that this is the son of David Bowie. Yes it true. This is Jones' first job at directing outside a few commercials, and surely did his dad proud. A darling of the indie scene, Sam Rockwell is virtually the only actor on the screen. It is a unique role written specifically for him, and for a good 80 minutes, you'll be seeing no one else. Finally Kevin Spacey does have a genuine role to play here, believe it or not. He is in fact the voice of the robot GERTY, and to get Kevin Spacey in your movie, even as a voice, is something to praise.
While Moon is a very small film, in every sense of the word, one place it breaks out of those standards is the story. Had it been given a bigger budget, this plot could have been intensified a lot, but as it remains it is still excellent. Astrounaut Sam Bell is on base at the Sarang Moon Mining Fecility for three years, or so his contract says. He is the only crew on board, aside for a small companion robot named GERTY. Being alone is such a deserted place does crazy things on the brain, and Sam knows this, even as he begins to experience some himself. But what if, he isn't the one going crazy?
"Okay Sam"
The two words uttered above are virtually the only thing that GERTY ever really says, and outside a few messages sent to the base by various people, Sam Rockwell is really the only person on the screen for most of the movie. His job of playing a man who is trying to save himself from insanity, with the idea of freedom just a few weeks away was done spectacularly. He had a lot of Oscar buzz online about this, and personally, I thought it was all going to be hype, but he sincerly does a great job. I can understand his not being recognized, but I do hope that some day, someone congradulates him on an excellent performance.
For a first time director, Duncan Jones does amazing as well. He had the ability to make his low budget sci-fi movie stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the best of the bunch. And for being a low budget sci-fi movie, it has a pretty good plot to boot, and even has some nice special effects, and great make-up. Whether or not he is as talented as his dad is unclear, but I definatly will see what he does in the future.
I only had one key flaw with the film, being such a great film, I'm kind of sorry that I noticed it, but after a few weeks of seeing it, it did come about. The film succeeds amazing on three key levels. Acting. Directing. And writing. But unfourtanetly for Moon, it does little for anything outside of those three categories. It is a low-budget sci-fi movie, and there is little about that we can help, but in the end, it is still just a really well made sci-fi movie. Similair to my probelms with last years The Host, which I thought was just a great monster movie, Moon is just a great sci-fi movie. So overall, I highly reccomend Moon, even despite this complaint. The general audience, as well as the art-house audience will enjoy it greatly, and that is because it is a great movie.
Made in 1998, yet purposly shot in black-and-white, Pi, was the first film for Darren Aronofsky, and Sean Gullette, both who would later go on to star, and direct in bigger productions. Pi often comes with the subtitle Faith In Chaos which I personally do not attach with the film, but respect nonetheless. I understand why general audiences have trouble with films like Mulholland Dr., which are very far out there, and very long. Pi is pretty far out there, but rather short, just making it past the 80 minute mark, but this is a film that you should prepare yourself for.
This is a very confusing film, and has a lot of tecnical math terms that I caught myself trying to remember. The lack of color may throw some people off, but I actually found that I perferred it, as my TV looks a lot smoother in black-and-white. While I may get a little backlash for this, I like Pi more than Aronofsky's more popular movie Requiem For A Dream. Now, this does not mean that Pi is better, by I enjoyed it more. Like I often tell people, there is a differnce between a good movie, and a fun movie. Pi is both good, and very enjoyable.
Pi is virtually a three-trick pony character wise. It is about a mathmatician named Maximillian, who, while trying to figure out a pattern in the stock market, has a computer crash. Lost and befuddled, he throws bangs up his a printer a bit, to find that it spits out a seemling random pattern of numbers. These numbers, as it turns out are the key to the stock market. Max meets a fellow Jew and mathmatcian that thinks that the numbers are significant in Kabbla, and the church desperatly wants them. In fact, they may just do anything.
"You are, but a vessel."
Darren Aronofsky definatly set a high bar for himself after Pi. He shows that he certainly has an intensive style, but also knows how to use it, without going overboard. He knows how to tell people what to do, in order to get the correct reactions, and he is also a brilliant writer. While not used to quite the same extent, Pi features the same fast cuts, quick pans, and seemingly awkward zooms that later made him famous in Requiem For A Dream. While Aronofsky has ventured more and more away from his style, doing first The Fountain, followed by one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2008, The Wrestler, showing that he can be very verstile when he needs to be.
Sean Gullette does an excellent job playing Max. The film basically rests entirly on his shoulders, as the other main characters only get maybe twenty minutes of screen-time. That being said, the supporting cast is great as well, Mark Morgolis does an excellent job playing Max's long-time math partner, and friend, who encourages him to walk away. Ben Shenkman is also in the film, playing the Hebrew preist who slowly lures Max into dangerous territory. Though the film did have mostly solid performances, there was some third rate characters that really bothered the screen whenever then came on. But they had small roles, so it wasn't too bad.
Overall, Pi is an excellent film. Not only did Aronofsky do a brilliant job writing and directing, but also showed wanna be directors how to go about their first film. He set a bar, standard, and style for himself, that he would go on to use again, that people love, and is entirly his. The performances by the core cast were excellent, and Sean Gullette made a great start and name for himself with this film. Small problems do occur within the film, including some annyoing back-up actors, and it's very short running lenth. I cannot reccoment Pi to a Transformers loving audience, but if you are in the mood for something slightly weird, or a good brain busting thriller, Pi is one for you.
Never heard of this movie? It's not foregin. It's not idependent. It was however realesed straight to DVD, despite my over-zealous excitment for it after I saw the trailer. It takes the simple, classic premise of some sort of an airborne toxin floating through the air, killing people. BUT, it has changed it up, because these people don't turn into zombies. It's an interesting premise, but I'll get into that later. This movie was a semi-big budget horror film, with some semi-known TV stars taking up the lead roles. The movie was produced by the subsideray of Paramount, Paramount Vantage, the company never made any plans to realese it in theatres, it kept on getting pushed back, and pushed back, until they finally just realesed it straight-to-DVD, where I rented, I'm actually really glad I didn't see it in theatres, because it would have cost me $4 more to see it. Yeah, it wasn't too good.
Carriers tells the story of four friends traveling around the country together, after an airborne toxin has let all hell break loose. We have two brothers, the older brothers girlfriend, and the younger brothers crush. Along the way, we learn that there are more people who have survived the infection. Some of them are just trying to survive, others are looters, going around looking for anything they can. Carriers is an infected movie. Not a zombie movie. The people do not turn into zombies after dying of the contagin, they simply die, and then the disease spreads along. While its not really that original, it was a nice twist on the classic zombie tale, well, not zombie, but you know.
This is where Carriers succeeds. In an interesting, somewhat original story. That is almost the only place where it succeeds. While the idea may be interesting, that does not mean that it was pulled off well. It was almost completely ruined by mostly annoying characters, and anti-climatic, cliche, and overused situations and scenarios. While most of the characters are annoying, and un-original, some are new, and inventive, so I also give the film points for that.
The acting here is shallow and inconsistent. Annoying characters and bad actors are a terrible combination, especially in a movie like this. Usually, I'm less inclined to complain about the acting in a horror movie, compared to a drama, where characters carry the story. But this film was just plain old bad. The group of characters we follow for most of the film consits of Lou Taylor Pucci, Chris Pine(of Star Trek, who is one of the better roles), Piper Perabo, and Emily Van Camp. The only saving grace is a small supporting role by Christopher Meloni, who in my opinion, is always pretty decent.
"Really, it's only a bruise."
Aside from the main aspect of Carriers, its a very nice film from a techincal standpoing. The movie doesn't use too many special effects, and still looks very nice. Upon first seeing the desert wasteland, it's a lot like watching 28 Days Later, and seeing the rundown London. The cinematography, lighting, and music were nice enough for a movie in general, but for a horror film really stood out.
This film was written and directed by Alex and David Pastor, while I can't say that I have full trust in their abilities, the next time they realese a movie, I will definatly RENT it, as I feel that they really have potential, that wasn't on display here. The direction was decent, and it felt very smooth, not like there was two seperate minds directing. The writing wasn't too good however, the dialouge was average, and you already know how I felt about the rest of it.
Carriers is an interesting little horror film, with a inticing, yet, sadly, not very good story, with annoying characters and bad acting. However, a few original characters and some interesting techiniques behind the camera make it stay ahead above most, but that cannot entirely save this film. For as much as I was looking forward to Carriers, I was dissapointed.
After nearly twelve years of production, James Cameron's epic about giant smurfs is here! Just kidding, I loved that South Park. Anyway, Avatar was written right after Cameron finished Titanic in 1997. Cameron sold the rights to the film, but couldn't make it, as he had to wait for "technology to catch up" with his ideas. So, it is now 2009, and he realesed his film, and he needs you to go see it. Why? Because this movies estimated budget is around $500 Million dollars, thats right, half a billion dollars. And so far, with it making about $270 million in two weeks, its not that far of a cry. But, the question I have is in the advertising campaign. They are heavily relying on the fact that this is "from the writer/director of Titanic" and this is a heavy Sci-Fi film, and he is also the writer/director of Terminator, T2, and Aliens, why not markey with those movies Fox? Of well, look at its grosses, there is a reason I'm not in the add bussiness.
Now, upon seeing the advertisements for this film (which were terrible, by the way), I was very skeptical, it was definatly going to be totally awesome, or totally fail. For the most part, it was very awesome, but there are some things that bothered me about the movie, character and story wise anyway. Lets also not forget that this movie is nearly three hours long. Though I give credit to Cameron, because the movie kept most of its momentum going, and only felt long at about the two hour, forty-five minute mark.
Though you probably already know, Avatar is about a government program set in the future, 2154 is the year if my memory serves, and we have found a distant space planet, which we now call Pandora. On Pandora we find this little tiny rock that sells for a lot of money, and is a great source of energy. However, and indigineous people live on the giant threshold of it, and we need them to get off. So, we create half human, half Na've (the blue people) hybrids called Avatars that we can put people into. Hence, Avatar.
Now, I may as well point out what everyone else is pointing out, that the story is way over used, and to me seemed very cliche. Dances With Wolves, The Last Samuri, hell, Pochohantas all had the same basic principals that this movie does. You know, I'm just going to dedicate this paragraph to problems, so I don't have too many paragraphs. The dialouge also seemed very corny some times "my brother, the best scientist on the planet, was killed, all for the paper in his wallet" in dramatic voice overs certainly do not help this movie very much. The characters were, for the most part annoying, underwritten, and totally lacking in many human emotion. That being said, I though that the main Na've, played by Zoe Saldana, was both emotionally rich, and was played amazing. Also, the acting was pretty typical, and card-board-cut-out, by just about everyone else. Except maybe Sigourney Weaver....
"Sir, we got a native doing the funky chicken."
But, even with all those negatives, you won't really notice them until after the fact, and that's what matters. During the movie, you aren't thinking about things like that, (except maybe the acting), unless you go to the movie looking from a critical standpoint which most people do not.
Most people going into Avatar are expecting some pretty good effects, some action, and watching stuff blow up. And you get it. While there isn't a ton of action to the film, there is a ton of effects. While most people are praising the motion capture used on the actors, I think that the enviornment looked much better than the creatures themselves. They manage to make this entire world, which is ficticous, and not based on any real life plants or animals, and make it 100% belivable, and real.
The motion capture was decent, but some of it I just didn't like. The textures on the Avatars looked very fakey to me, but the real Na've looked really good, I don't know if that was intentional or not, but it was noticed, in fact, I think that the Na've look better when we don't see them as a human first. I have made the estimation that this is because if we see them as humans first, then we know what to expect from them as Avatars, and this whole motion capture stuff isn't perfect yet, so until you get used to it, it is a little underwhelming.
I have a lot of mean words for Avatar, but I won't post them here. For those going into this movie thinking it is going to be politcally powerful like most people are claiming it to be, then prepare to be dissapointed. If you are going into expecting a good story, prepare to be dissapointed, if you are going into it expecting great special effects, cool action, and just a plain ol' fun movie, then you will get your moneys worth.
The creators of this film would like to thank movie piracy. I'm not kidding, this movie was downloaded from fileshare nearly 400,000 times a week, before it was legally realesed on DVD. This story came about when no big studio wanted to pick it up for theatrical realese. The film was realesed on the directors website, and then it became one of the most illegally downloaded films of all time, thus, Ink was realesed on DVD, in a somewhat mass-market fashion. I stumbled upon this film while walking across my local rental house, and not seeing anything else that look as interesting (or that was in), and what I got was a mixed bag, but I was surprised.
Ink tells the story of what happens to us while we sleep, in our dreams to be more presice. As it turns out, people who have already died, come to us in our sleep and gives us our dreams. But of course, if some people can give dreams, others can give nightmares. Things called The Incubus are responsible for keeping us up at night, and making our sleeping subconcious hectic. When we die, we have a choice, to become a giver of good dreams, or a giver of bad. Our main villian, Ink, has chosen to be evil, and to join the Incubus, he must kidnap a little girl, and bring her back to the Incubus world. While being transported to this dream world the little girl is in a "coma", and her father won't come and see her for various reasons you'll have to find out. All this going on while the good dreams try and get her back from Ink.
While the plot may seem a little farfetched (which it admittly is) it is a movie, and a chance to escape, and create a world of which we wouldn't normally see. The story was nice, well paced, interesting, and, overall hopeful. The movie has a nice twist, and it could have easily made the movie very confusing, but the directors keep it simple, with no over, or underexplanation of the story, and everything fits well together.
The film has a very cool visual style that goes along with it. The Incubus look really cool, as does a lot of the other fantasitcal creatures. But a few of the costumes definatly looked like they were from a low budget movie. More cool style comes from the editing, which is quick, and choppy some moments, and slow and flowing in others. Post-production colors changes, switching to negative, painted backgrounds and other techiniques made the film very cool. The special effects were decent for this kind of movie, the subtle ones were the best, while the big obvious ones looked kind of hokey.
"You've done well Ink"
Most of the acting in this movie was done by newcomers. Most of them did an impressive job, if fact Chris Kelly had a duel role, and does very well. However, some of the other acting was up to par with his, it seemed really uneven, and some roles were bigger than others, and some of the small ones were done better than the bigger ones, and it seemed like it had an odd casting job.
The last note that I would like to pointout is the sets and costumes. Some of the sets were very good looking, and others looked like they were shot in an alley. The costumes were nice as well, granted some of them were kid of boring. Also, one of the charecters has a very big nose, which seemed to vary in size quite a bit. I don't know, just noticed it.
Overall, Ink was a very fun surprise, a cool independent film experience, and shows want-to-be film makers how a low-budget film is done. The style is cool, the writing is solid, and a good 30% of the acting is solid. However, that leaves another 70% of acting that I didn't like, and somes of the sets and costumes looked fake. I still enjoyed the film, as a whole experience though.
Ink
