User Reviews (34)

Add a Review

  • sfinancing24 February 2019
    This had the potential to be an excellent film but unfortunately drifted into mediocrity. This low/no budget time travel sci-fi drama started out with all the signs of being a hidden gem in the footsteps of "The man from Earth" before it tragically stumbles.

    An interesting premise combines with some interesting dialogue for a not too preachy societal commentary. Had they focussed more on a theme of personal growth, the time travel aspect or possibly even the societal commentary angle then this one could have unearthed the gem that remained buried. As it is, it is more of a muddled mess.

    Acting Henrickson and Keegan turn in good performances. The remainder should probably leave this one off their resumes.

    Writing was excellent in the first half of the film sliding into tired for the conclusion.

    Low budget so don't look for miracles in terms of soundtrack or cinematography and as expected special effects were no existent.

    Overall...

    Not sorry I saw it but unlikely to recommend it. If you have a couple hours with nothing more interesting to waste it on, give this one a look.
  • The visuals don't change too much in this film, but that's just a minor thing, and doesn't really impact on it at all - it's the story and the script that really got me hooked!

    Yes, another film about time travel, without the CGI & SFX seen elsewhere.

    The performance by the two main actors was very convincing, and the dialogue very thought provoking. The other two actors weren't as impressive with their delivery from time to time (haha), but don't let that put your off.

    I had goosebumps several times in this film and enjoyed just about every minute of it.

    What tipped me over from 6 to 7/10 was the ending, it almost seemed to end... naturally.

    I very much liked this film!
  • bml8417 September 2013
    5/10
    Eh?
    If you've seen K-Pax then you'll know what it's like when a film with a great premise and fully committed wonderful actors manages to create a reverse alchemy- a movie which is less than the sum of its parts.

    Lance is intense and fascinating to watch as ever, and his face carries the burden of world weary regret wonderfully, but no-one else can quite reach the bar he sets.

    The two-handed sessions are interesting, but never quite reach the heights of true insight, being entertaining rather than revelatory.

    The main theme of the nature of Fate is fascinating, and the premise sound, but as others have noticed it would have made for a wonderful 30 minutes rather than a rather laborious 90.

    Watch it by all means, but see it as a dress rehearsal for a potential classic short film rather than the rather vapid exercise it turns out to be.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is a slow-moving after-school special that's also creepy. Some reviewers say SF buffs will love it. On the contrary, SF buffs should hate it, because it's the kind of movie that gives SF a bad name.

    Everything about it is lame, from the sleep-inducing music to the stilted dialogue (One character even speaks without using contractions. Yep, like a robot.) to the pedestrian acting to the thoroughly overdone time-travel scenario of---SPOILER ALERT---going back in time to warn yourself. I kept hoping I was wrong, so I stuck with it to the end. Or is it the end? Maybe time is a continuous loop, and I'm doomed to watch this drivel again tomorrow.
  • I recently saw "The Penitent Man" at the Seattle premiere early this week. The two main actors, Lance Henriksen and Lathrop Walker, performed very well. The soundtrack was appropriate and professional. In my opinion, what was supposed to be undertone was overtly obvious. The movie itself had interesting points and almost not surprisingly was written in two weeks. The director, who also co-wrote and produced the film, is very young and it is apparent that it is early in his career. There were places in the film that were overly tense and suspenseful feeling awkward and tearing the viewer away from the relationship trying to be established with the characters. This movie had potential based on the storyline idea but fell flat in the end.
  • The first 10-20 minutes were promising. Some crisp dialogue, decent acting, and you got to care about the tight group of players. And then it ground to a halt very quickly. From suggesting that history has the answer to all of Science as we currently know it (don't even start me on that one lol) - to something I imagine most people will pick up early on, but have to wait an hour to see the official "reveal". And the dialogue was probably OK if children's Sci-Fi TV is your average viewing, and the occasional soap. I actually bit off all my fingers and thumb so I couldn't fast forward. I was determined to see if I missed something that wasn't superfluous to requirement. Like sifting through the Sahara for a ring you may have lost there. And no, nothing but pain. It could have all been wrapped up nicely in a 15 minute short. As an "Outer Limits" or "Twilight Zone" episode, it would have been one of the poorer fillers. Dreadful.
  • Aware, Certainly, that the Sci-Fi Story of Time Travel has a Rich, Prolific, and Popular Place in Literature and Culture.

    Undeterred Lance Henricksen Contributes His Charismatic Screen Personality (when he speaks you are compelled to listen), for Another Take.

    Helping New-Comer Nicolas Geyney, who Single-Handedly Got the Picture Made and Released, almost by Sheer Passion.

    The Premise of "What if...?" you knew the "True Story" of every Event in the History of the World,

    Simply by Pushing a Button Programmed with a Date and...Wha-La it Appears on Your Video Screen as a sort of Remote Camera and Reveals in HD (ha ha) the Reality of the "Real Time" you Commanded.

    What that Knowledge would Inspire, Incite, or cause the Populace of the Planet to Do is the Situation in the Future and it's Not a Pretty Picture.

    The Inventor of the Technology has Traveled "Back to the Past" and Confesses His Sin (allowing his discovery to become known) because He Now Knows the Consequences.

    Essentially a 4 Person Closely Confined Movie...The Inventor and Time Traveler (Henricksen)...the Mental-Health Professional that He has Met With Before (Lanthrop Walker) ...The Doctor's Wife (Evelyn Pyatt) Carrying a Soon to be Born Baby, and His Best-Friend (Ovid Serrano).

    While the Premise is Tropism, the Compact Little Setting Unveils an Intimacy that the Story Rarely Uses,

    as the SFX take Over and Time Travel is just a Vehicle Overwhelming the Central Point.

    The Philosophical, Personal, and Political Insights take a Back-Seat to the More Visceral Visuals that are There for Entertainment.

    It's a Refreshing Minimalist Movie with a Dialog and Discussion Unfettered by the Presentation of Visuals.

    If This Format Sounds Interesting, then it's...Worth a Watch

    Note...penitent adj...Feeling or expressing remorse for one's misdeeds or sins; contrite.
  • Someone said this was thought provoking and based on that and the cast list, I thought I'd give this a try. As far as I can see the main villain in this movie is the script writer. While the plot was interesting if predictable, this film has some fine actors which do their best during some (albeit tear-less) crying scenes. The worst part is that there is way too much expository monologue.

    If you like emotional drivel ("...where did it all go wrong...") then tune into something with better scripts, like the Jerry Springer show.

    While this would've made a fine Twilight Zone episode, there's just not enough there to stretch into a full length film.

    Like I said, it's too late for me. Save yourself.
  • Penitent Man (2010) is a mostly contemporary drama with science fiction notes, in which well-known actors like Lance Henriksen and Andrew Keegan mingle seamlessly with local Seattle talent.

    Without giving much of anything away, here's the story: Mr. Darnell (Lance Henriksen) tries to convey an unlikely message to Dr. Jason Pyatt (Lathrop Walker), which could potentially save his marriage, his life, and the lives of billions of people.

    There were a couple of elements of this film that stood out for me. The first was the dialog, by which I mean the writing, sound design, and acting. Penitent Man is dialog heavy, but not to a fault. The writing flows with an enjoyable dramatic cadence and the back and forth between characters, especially those who disagree with one another, are captivating to watch and listen to. An aside: Henriksen is not only a good actor, but a great voice talent as well.

    The other element of the film that really popped out for me was setting. While the film was shot in a short amount of time, on a small budget, the film manages to create a clear and cogent world, while also highlighting some great places in Seattle that hardly made it into cinema.

    Overall I enjoyed the writing, sound/music, and settings of the film, and I felt engaged with the characters. The film was a quality creation and I was left thinking/talking about physics and "what ifs" for a few weeks afterward.

    Go watch it already!
  • Watch this movie if you want to learn about time travel concepts. Else plot is weak and climax is very disappointing. Fundamentals of time travel very nicely and slowly explained. Dialogue delivery at its best.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I watched this on Amazon Prime due to Lance Henriksen and the many great reviews, which I now suspect were written by friends and family of the director/actors.

    Whats Good about it? Lance Henriksen gives a steady, solid performance playing a haunted character who has had plenty of time to reflect on his actions. Stoic and delivers his lines with ease.

    The time travel concept described, which originally laid out is more akin to being able to observe any point in prior history, and the devastating repercussions of such a discovery, is quite intriguing but not uniquely original (watch Twilight Zone/Outer Limits reboots from the nineties).

    This is not a mind bender by any stretch, it is entirely predictable early on who all of these characters are in relation to one another (hard to go into much detail without some major spoilers) but anyone who is a time travel fan will know exactly what's coming.

    The camera-work is hand-held quality in so many scenes, the sets are clearly on the level of 'Hey, I rented a virtual office space for the day, we'll just film it there' It's a complete amateur hour production. Some of the most horrific straight to DVD/SCYFI channel schlock have better production values.

    Most importantly, Lathrop Walker is an embarrassingly bad actor in this outing, which is even more apparent as he tries to play off of the veteran Henriksen, and that's also consistent with his screen time with the other minor characters (Keegan & Roberts do their best with what they have to work with)

    It contributes nothing new to the genre, and is too amateurish to be taken seriously.
  • A tragedy, a work of science fiction, and a satire on mankind's thirst for knowledge all rolled into one, The Penitent Man bravely asks many "what ifs" without providing every answer. In a world of indie films about umbrellas dancing on water and other tripe, this one stands out as a fine example of what someone who simply loves movies can do.

    In Nick Gyeney's sophomore effort, The Penitent Man, it's the summary's complex math that is being illustrated.

    The story follows the interactions between a young psychologist and his three foils- his wife, his best friend, and his patient. Gyeney breaks a cardinal rule of storytelling: he tells instead of shows. Thankfully, cardinal rules of storytelling are more like guidelines anyway. The film is 85 minutes of dialog, and no amount of intrigue and suspense can prevent it from dragging in places. However slow the film's pace may be, the points of tedium are few and far between; an impressive achievement for a script that threatens to become a run-on sentence. Gyeney prevents this by giving the audience 10 CC doses of separate conversations, rather than a steady IV.

    The center point of the film is Pyatt's conversation with a mysterious patient, Mr. Darnell (Lance Henriksen). Through the therapy session where Dr. Pyatt (Lanthrop Walker) attempts to understand- and subsequently help- the resigned yet charismatic Darnell, the main plot points are revealed in startling succession. A few minutes into the meat of the conversation, and most viewers will understand Mr. Darnell's purpose- if not the whole story. Yet, the wonderful thing about The Penitent Man is that it is not designed to keep the viewer guessing. The point is not a big reveal towards the end, but rather, the illustration of what Mr. Darnell understands, how it ties with Dr. Pyatt personally, and even how it illuminates mankind. Mr. Darnell speaks of knowledge, and money, and relationships, and time-travel... yes, time-travel. I'll leave the rest to your imagination for the time being.

    The strongest aspect of The Penitent Man is- without question- the cinematography. Don't let the opening pan shot fool you; Gyeney is equally gifted with pen as with the camera. Every shot (with the exception of the aforementioned) is aesthetically pleasing. Every edit and transition is smooth and easy, like a good liquor, which belies the real-world experience of this young film crew at Mirror Images. Subtle hints and homages are given throughout the film, but the best part is that one doesn't have to catch all the little pieces to appreciate the whole.

    The acting of the small cast gets a pass for the super-rich intangibles they are forced to contemplate. Even experienced actors like Andrew Keegan ("Ten Things I Hate About You", "O") are not immune to the notoriously flat delivery that indie films can bring out. Keegan's Ovid is still well-played, especially in the brief moments of levity in a conversation strewn with hypotheticals and abstracts most good friends don't often discuss. Walker, a relative unknown from Seattle, does a passable job as the conflicted Dr. Jason Pyatt. Melissa Roberts and Adrien Gamache shine in lesser roles as Pyatt's wife and a mysterious stranger, respectively. Unfortunately, Roberts' teary monologue and subsequent thrust-and-parry with Jason toward the end seems a bit contrived after a generally emotionless first half. Lance Henriksen ("Aliens", "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (VG)") is naturally the best of the lot, playing the part of the (almost literally) world-weary, eternally tormented scientist with delicious poise.

    I will forewarn you that there is a secret that is never revealed, which may drive some to madness. But keep in mind when watching- the spectacle is not the point, the story is. This movie does exactly what these kinds of movies do best: inspire questions and discussion.

    Keep your eye on this director. If this is what Gyeney can do in less than a month, on a limited budget, between projects, let's see what he can do with more money and time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The plot owes way too much to an X-Files episode (Synchrony, 1997). Worse, the X-Files episode is better than this movie without taking twice as long. In fact, the entire plot is a standard trope (see: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyFutureSelfAndMe), which the writer/director of this movie possibly thinks is an original idea (?), or at least an idea worth a ham-fisted attempt at gravitas. The acting is good at times, but more often forced and unconvincing, and always severely hampered by the stilted dialogue and over-stretched themes. The presentation is entirely dull with nothing cinematically interesting going on at all. A major attempt seems to have been made here to distract from the shallowness of the story (and the artistically and technically mundane film-making) with serious-sounding verbiage. But in the end the character development and plot is almost zero (the plot in particular since we've seen it all before). Even if you accept the sci-fi time travel premise, the utter implausibility of the characters shown here being even remotely capable of the accomplishments presented in the film makes the whole thing absurd. And again, the consistently flat presentation makes it a long slog. Films can often be banal while also being entertaining and even exciting, but no such luck here. There are plenty of eye-rolling moments throughout, but the last 15 minutes are particularly hard to get through without laughing, even though everything is presented as dead serious. This could have been a passable TV episode in an unremarkable series, but as a movie it doesn't come close to carrying the weight it's striving for.
  • This low budget, slow moving movie with many local actors starts with an interesting idea about time travel (easily guessed early on) and stretches it to fill an hour and a half of mostly dialogue and background music. I'm sure everyone earnestly participated and did their best to make this a long shot that would wow the world with the "deep" ideas discussed and the sincere efforts of the "wonderfully talented" writer, director, and cast. It really is mediocre. The interesting part is to read the glowing reviews of all the participants' contributions and the "fabulous" concepts explored by the movie. The praise is so over the top that anyone can see who wrote these reviews. I guess I can't really rely on a film with a score above 7 to be worth checking out. This is the world we live in.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Lance Henriksen basically carries the entire film. The main character is monotone and unbelievable. Add into this what could be an interesting plot, but somehow I kept waiting for it to turn fully into a Christian film. It was really that bad. The characters continually talk about the future in which once jesus is shown as just a man, (thanks to a device that allows humans to see into the past), the world basically loses all morality and humans just attack each other endlessly, while the greed of the government takes over fully - it's a caricature of every zealot on the planet who thinks that people cannot possibly be moral without religion parodied as a plot device in a scifi disguise. Then once they've thoroughly pushed that plot point into you, the movie begins to preach about how to keep a relationship. I mean, they could've done so much with this, but to use a bunch of rehashed views of people who don't seem to understand what drives people to hurt one another or what makes someone moral. Heck they cannot even look up viable psychological diagnosis for the main character to give his patient. I'm not even in that field and I could come up with at least one legitimate diagnosis to put in the film with just a few minutes online. It made me laugh when a supposed mental health doctor suggested that the old man's only possible diagnosis was that he was crazy, a liar, or his fantastical tale was true. I'd venture to take a wild guess that a real professional would base an opinion on more than one tale and seeing that they had a year-long professional relationship before the film's start, he should've had a good idea whether the guy was having a real mental health issue or not. It really makes the mental health field look awful and is definitely how I picture my more religious family to see mental health as a whole. I kept waiting for someone to say something about the world needing god/religion/christianity and that psychology just couldn't help in this dilemma. To its credit, the film doesn't go that far, but the implication is there from the beginning.
  • botfeeder27 November 2019
    Warning: Spoilers
    I only made it halfway through, but it seems safe to assume the second half was the same.

    This was in my view basically a "books on tape" of a screenplay involving a story about time travel.

    Whether it would make a good drama I do not know. But in the form of an interminable narrative, I did not find it engaging. I do feel proud I made it all the way to the halfway mark before I couldn't take it any more.
  • leo-4508 April 2013
    Some independent films you can be entertained if you are forgiving when it comes to sets or locations, as long as the story is superb. Others would say, as long as there's action or visual effects, they are OK with the story being lofty.

    I will say once and a while, a film will come along where you get a fascinating story and perfect acting.

    I'm turning 40 this year and realizing this event has caused me to question many things in life, along with other interesting events. The center of this story for me was incredibly soul-stirring and can make one question their own existence.

    Fabulous and great job to everyone who worked on the cast & the crew of this film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I love Lance Henrikson. I'll watch anything he is in. He's always good value. This movie scored 7.5. I was prepared to watch piece of art at 7.5. It's long winded and goes nowhere very slowly. It's pointless and boring. Waiting for something to happen that never happens. Save your time and energy!
  • vwalch23 January 2010
    The Penitent Man is a thought-provoking psychological drama starring a small cast that is big on talent. The plot, though not unique, has intriguing twists that keep you engaged during the film and talking about it for days following. Short on budget, The Penitent Man lacks the action and special effects that many movie-goers are accustomed to but it has the appeal of fringe productions that garner a cult following. The film, which premiered in January 2010, was shot in Seattle and featured both seasoned Hollywood actors and fresh local talent. The young (23) director, Nicholas Gyeney, shows incredible promise… keep your eyes on him in the future years.
  • You better be caffeinated when you watch this one, or ready to take a nap.
  • Yes indeed, a thought-provoking piece of work, generally well-acted. The ambiance and face-to-face dialog-centered framework used in the exposition of ideas is, however, straight out of the 2007 film "The Man from Earth" (check it out; I would rate it at least 8/10). And the scientific crux of the plot is straight out of Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter's 2000 novel, "The Light of Other Days." The similarities of this movie to these preceding works are so striking that it is hard to imagine that the writer and director were not consciously emulating them. As a whole, if your time is at all limited, I would recommend skipping this and watching and reading those earlier works.
  • zeeken11 May 2021
    Lance Henriksen is the only redeeming part of this high school project. The dialogue, no monologues, are what you expect from a IFLS reader smoking weed for the first time while having what they believe are truly profound insights.

    The plot twists are so obvious I actually expected them to go a completely different way in the end but no, it is just that predictable.

    If you end up hovering over the movie icon on Netflix or Prime just go one step in any other direction and press play, you can thank me later.
  • The Penitent Man's gripping story defies standard genre categorization and breaks all the "rules," providing viewers with an original and extremely effective take on a classic sci-fi question. The film is driven by stellar performances, especially from the two leads Henriksen and Walker, but The Penitent Man's greatest asset is undoubtedly its director Nicholas Gyeney who managed to make a dialog driven film absolutely thrilling to watch. The film's intimacy allows the audience to share the emotions that play out on screen, creating an intense bond between viewers and the characters that only grows as the story unfolds and we learn more about the personal struggles of the film's main players. When all is said and done, The Penitent Man is an insightful look at human relationships and most importantly a wonderful cinematic experience. I can't wait to see what's next for Gyeney and Co.
  • A Sci Fi made for under 500,000 and yet the script and dialogue is excellent. The performance by Lance Heriksen kept me engaged for entire movie. A thinking person's story.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    To be or not to be that is the question.

    We all bring our culture to the table in any creative enterprise -- Almodóvar is distinctly Spanish in his view. Gyeney is distinctly Hungarian / Magyar in his perspective to film making.

    The screenplay was elegant in its simplicity. The thing that I liked about this film was the plot developed naturally -- it was not shoved down your throat for consumption.

    The actors worked well in what I would call an ensemble piece. A group of complementary parts that contribute to a single effect, the suspension of disbelief for a brief moment in time.

    Time -- that in of itself is the central question of the film -- Does one's choices matter, in the grand scheme of things? If you could choose again would you? The film gives "12 Monkeys" a run for its money.

    Hollywood has a great tradition of Hungarian talent -- Michael Curtis (director of Casablanca) to Lajos Koltai (DoP Being Julia (2004). Mr. Gyeny has a bright future.
An error has occured. Please try again.