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 haven't watched all of this mess. Besides, it's screening on Chiller right now, which means I would only see an extremely censored version anyway. This is the kind of movie that makes me wonder what has happened the the American horror film industry. At one time this might have fit into the old misogynistic grind-house genre. But instead of being a Something Weird Video study in cinematographic personal weirdness, what we have here more closely resembles a badly written bit of internet degradation erotica. The very idea that this could get financed without a house being mortgaged astounds me. The idea of a group of people assembling to work on it without the hiring of friends, drug addicts, prostitutes, and/or low level porn vets says something wretched about America today. Somewhere along the line, cheap horror has lost it's charm. Where once we had a fairly consistent flow of wacky attempts to astound, we now are asked to watch some writer and director indulge in their crude, ugly, masturbatory, fantasies. This is not only true of the discount direct-to-DVD market, but of the well financed Hollywood horror flick of the day. The depths that the director's imagination is willing to plummet is the star of the film. It's as though we are reviewing the portfolios of potential serial killers and sexual sadists. So, if I haven't sat through the whole thing, and I dismiss the current trends in horror cinema, why am I even bothering to comment on something I obviously think is beyond is beyond contempt? Simple. As I said, it's screening on Chiller. For this oozing scab to appear on a basic cable channel in mid afternoon, speaks loudly of how far we have fallen. Chiller and the SyFy network were two channels I hoped to be places where I could indulge my lifelong fandom of fantasy cinema. I'm certainly no elitist. I can speak for hours about the oddball and perverse cheap thrills I've had romping through the twisted subconscious of our less fortunate film makers. But now after more than 50 years of fun, I find myself wondering what the Hell happened. Are the media financiers so cynical and disrespecting of their audience that they can ladle this mung on the publics head without a speck of regret? Like I said, I'm no naive child losing my innocence. I'm a lifelong fan of the good, the bad, and the gloriously loopy in the fantasy realm. I've rationalized this by believing that vigorous fantasy is always a revealing social self portrait, thus worthy of serious attention. I still believe that is true, but the portrait I see is of a grimy, bleak, sadistic, mediocre, artless, landscape that can't even bother to create and present something that approaches competency. The fantasy genre now resembles the cafeteria at the end of Orwell's 1984. A gray place serving inedible food to degraded lost souls who realize that all their dreams were just delusions, and reality is just something so pitiful that suicide isn't worth the trouble. How sad....

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...

Penance is an example of this decade's "torture porn" craze at its worst. Cheaply made, with largely unknown actors, the film lacks the creativity of films such as Saw, substituting shock tactics for originality.The story is nothing new. An innocent young woman is forced to become a stripper because of financial trouble, and ends up falling into the hands of a depraved religious fanatic. (I'm a humanist, and even I think this movie gives religion a bad name.) What follows is an hour long wallow in torture and extremely graphic sequences of genital mutilation, both male and female.What makes the movie particularly disgusting is its implicit acceptance of the moral logic of the villain. The protagonist is a victim of circumstance, not a "bad" stripper like the others, who are depicted in the most stereotypical, degrading way possible. At times, this approach pushes the film into outright misogyny.Furthermore, Penance relies on a video taping framing device ripped off from better films like REC. The result is a cheap looking digital feature that adds nothing to the overall story.The only good points of the film are the scenes with Michael Rooker, which unfortunately comprise only ten minutes or so. One wishes the film had been focused on his character instead.