Underground sensation ‘Ink’ is generating buzz online
Denver’s ‘Ink’ is becoming an underground hit
Sometimes covering movie news and writing reviews can be a bit taxing. With long nights and early mornings usually dedicated to writing something about a movie that was mediocre, terrible or just a smidgen above the bar of marginal, relief always seems so elusive. Yet in the midst of the beige parade, a film will come around that deserves a bit of respect.
Back in March I was invited to a screening of a film called Ink from director Jamin Winans. I get a lot of invites for movies that are A) not very interesting or B) look terrible. For Ink it was different. It looked incredible (see below) and the film was definitely up my alley: thrilling, spooky and a little chilling. (It also doesn’t hurt to support your local filmmaker.)
When the credits rolled on Ink at the Starz FilmCenter in Denver, I was pretty well shaken by the experience. It was fantastic. It was moving and most of all, it was meaningful. The shitty thing about Ink was that the film was never picked up for distribution and it has been playing the film festival circuit for more than a year now while showing at cool indie/art house cinemas. Yet, a funny thing happened on my way to the computer…
Ink has jumped 81,093% on IMDB to reach the No.16 spot. That’s huge. Could Ink be the next Paranormal Activity? Could we “demand” Ink to be played in theaters across the country? Well…maybe. Another oddity from the Ink-front is that the movie has been illegally downloaded hundreds of thousands of times according to playbillsvspayingbills.com. Please people, don’t do that. The crew/cast/makers of this film worked incredibly hard on this production so wait until the film is available on Netflix, iTunes or Blockbuster on November 10th or buy it right frakkin’ now.
Here’s our review of Ink from March. Spread the word about this great movie.
Hmm, please don't do that, eh? So I got to see Ink tonight thanks to illegal downloading. I liked it quite a lot, and am now recommending it. There are *no* arthouse theaters in my area and I would have never gotten to see it otherwise. If a DVD is ever released I will certainly buy it, and if it ever gets wide distribution I'll be recommending it like crazy and certainly paying to see it. But without that pirate download I would've never known about it and likely overlooked it as a straight-to-DVD piece of trash if it ever came out on DVD. Do you really think these artists would rather their film not be seen than someone get to see it for free? Has big business and big copyright brainwashed everyone already into thinking art is only for money? I see phooey on that. If you can get out to the theater to see it: do so. If you can't, hey look it's available online for you to whet your appetite and possibly fall in love with. Would the artists who made this rather deprive someone a favorite film just because there's no big business behind it distributing it? Somehow I doubt that.
Scratch that, now that I see its available, well, today, I'm pretty much going to order it unless I can find it in the Target or Wal-Mart. Guess what? I still downloaded it first, and *gasp* I'm still buying it now. And again, I never would've taken notice of it without that illegal risk-free download. Thank you internet, down with copyright idiocy.
You could also stop by the official site and donate a few bucks too.
I've donated $10 and bought the DVD from them. I'd never have been able to do this otherwise so do it then give some money!
Good karma for you, pal.