Penance (2009)

They don't get much worse than this. Plot makes no sense. Characters wouldn't all be that stupid. This is a "found video footage" type movie and you are supposed to believe there are many cameras and everyone's first priority, even at their own peril is to videotape things. Your life is in immediate danger, you need to stop and videotape. Please.... If you came for the nudity, it's not worth it. If you came for the violence it's uninspiring. And there really is not much nudity or violence anyway. 1 star but deserves less.

What a shame that a wonderful cast full of decent character actors and genre stalwarts is wasted in a nasty little 'torture porn' style movie. The tale of a couple of strippers who are abducted by some crazy characters who plan to punish and perform cruel surgery on them is an awful one, let down by overwrought acting, dodgy execution, and unpleasant gore effects.The only reason I watched this was for all the familiar faces. Genre mainstays like Lochlyn Munro, James Duval, and Jason Connery all have minor parts. The main villain is played by Graham McTavish, a personal favourite of mine purely because of his wonderful character in RAMBO, and he's good here too, although he has little to work with. We also get a brief Tony Todd cameo, and a nicely sleazy turn for Michael Rooker. It's just a pity with all the talent involved that they couldn't come up with something better than this 'torture porn' dreck.

The movie is off to a bad start with the new wave horror cliché of being shot on hand-held camera, this is by no means a bad thing if it is done correctly such as the infamous "Blair witch project" and "Cloverfield", however in the case of penance it feels like this was done to save money and not add atmosphere or a sense of realism to the movie (if it did it was lost on me). But the cliché doesn't stop there, everything in the movie seems to have some overused explanation or have a means of tribute to other horror movies; This begins with the main character (Marieh Delfino) taking up stripping as for providing for her young child (as seen in striptease and a subplot in independence day), this tries crudely to justify the need to show her topless from the first five minutes of the movie (the justification for why some guy has to film her on his camera has an even worse explanation), quite honestly the sex appeal was pretty much the reason for me continuing to watch this movie. Secondly comes the cameos of both Tony Todd and Michael Rooker, Todd established himself as a respectable horror movie actor with his performance in the cult (if you like) classic "Candyman" and making further cameos in other horror movies such as in final destination 1&2, Michael Rooker who appears as semi-main characters or occasional villains had an unnecessary and wasted role as a character who does nothing but shoot prostitutes. Finally comes Graham McTavish who if the hobbit boosts his carer he will no doubt regret doing this movie and possibly the most disturbing scene in any movie ever where the word castration falls only too short. Next is the justification Graham McTavish's character has for kidnapping, holding and torturing prostitutes, the ever famous and over used justification of being in some extreme Christian cult (seen in devil rides out, blood on Satan's claw and witch finder general, not bad movies) of which his means is redemption, the justification of his three helpers are never fully explained and are seemingly just along for the ride, the torture methods used include; whipping (topless of course), beatings, verbal abuse and genital mutilation, admittedly McTavish plays a sinister religious zealot and is the sole reason for the movie not being a complete failure. Another feature which could be pointed out to give the movie some credibility is that you get what you see "torture porn" and doesn't seem like the kind of movie which takes itself seriously. Finally in the cliché agenda is the typical sub-tag-line of "based on true events", whether this case was (if it was I assume it was over- exaggerated, at least I hope so) or wasn't it just seemed like a good way to get a horror movie with a LOT of sex appeal and justify lack of story with this sub-tag-line, it is also suggested that Graham McTavish's character was based on a real person who performed many female genital mutilations (I'm unclear to whether this is true or who it is. Either way the whole movie seems too far-fetched to be based on true events especially the religious undertone. The conclusion of this movie is that it seems like a chance to explore excessive amounts of nudity and torture, what saves this movie from being among the worst is that the acting is mediocre and not horrible, the scripting is nothing special but there is far worse, finally there is no one in this movie who could be classed as a "bad actor or actress" and to be fair you lose concentration on such matters with such high sex appeal of which previously stated is the only thing which keeps interest there is not much else that can be said for this movie if your into torture porn this is a must-see but otherwise not a movie to go out of your way to watch, and definitely not for the squeamish.

I'm not one to slate low-budget films- in fact, a lot of the time, they can seem much more realistic and worth-while. This, however, is an embarrassing display of poor acting with another Brit cast as the psychopath targeting some defenceless Americans. First of all, that stereotype is getting old- we're not all like that. Secondly, any credibility that this film claims to have with its "true characters" is lost with the ridiculous idea of each party deciding to film their absurd actions from both sides. It's just not plausible and way too co-incidental.Decent if you want to see some genital mutilation (although nothing graphic), otherwise it's pretty dire...