Johnny Frank Garrett's Last Word

According to the prosecution, on the morning of October 31, 1981, Johnny Frank Garrett raped, strangled, and killed 76-year-old Sister Tadea Benz in the St. Francis Convent of Amarillo, Texas. This film asks: what if he was innocent, and what is he was able to affect his accusers from beyond the grave?

The concept behind this film is an interesting one. The case is real, and was the subject of a documentary from director Jesse Quackenbush. What the writers did here was take the documentary as inspiration and a jumping-off point, and in the process gave the ghost of Garrett a voice.

For genre fans, the first thing that will be obvious is the inclusion of a few choice names. We have an ambitious district attorney played by Sean Patrick Flanery (Boondock Saints). We have director Simon Rumley, who shocked viewers with "P is for Pressure". Perhaps most interesting, though, is the composer: Simon Boswell, a prolific musician who got his start with movies thanks to Dario Argento.

Rumley came on board with the script already written, but he was a wise choice if the producers wanted someone to put their own stamp on the material. Rumley prefers to see his work as "extreme drama" rather than horror, and this project gives him plenty of opportunity for social commentary: the Texas death penalty, a miscarriage of justice, strong religious overtones… there is a message under the veneer of a revenge story.

Some critics have complained of "schlocky, bad acting", and Curt McCarl specifically said it's "shameful that an opportunity to tell an honest story was wasted on this schlock." Yes, multiple reviews have used the word schlock. And, sure, some of the acting is a bit over-the-top. But the film has a style all its own and some practical touches (including the lethal injection needle and the teacher's makeup) that should be applauded for their authenticity. Even the effort to get 90s-era computers and whatnot was probably no small task.

"Last Word" is not going to be the must-see horror film of 2017, but it certainly has its merits and is worth a look. If nothing else, it might bring increased attention to the documentary and original court case. And with Simon Rumley being a rising star, it never hurts to get acquainted with his work now (if you haven't already).

I thought this was going to be the typical revenge from beyond the grave flick. I was wrong. This was a pleasant surprise. "Based" on factual events stories are usually horrible and full of cliches. This could almost pass as believable. the story telling, acting, script, directing was above average. definitely not your typical slasher type flick. The only problem I had was with the colouring of the film. Other than that, I'd highly recommend.

This is a campfire ghost story with delusions of being a film. Even the line of text we are given in the end has the feeling of "hanging from the door handle was a BLOODY HOOK!"

The choices in color saturation felt contrived. The filmmaker might as well have put captions in "this is a hallucination... this part is supposed to be scary." There were some odd, amateurish editing choices (such as phone calls where the view jumped back and forth between the main character and a side character, such as a secretary we will never see again, when a voice heard on the other end of the line would have been less distracting and just as useful). Most of the characters manage to be both overwrought and entirely two-dimensional. Many of them were just thrown in oddly for no apparent purpose other than to beef up the time.

Basically, as I said, it's a campfire tale. Someone tried to flesh it out enough to fill the time required for a movie, but most of it was not only unnecessary, it was distracting.

Ultimately, the question for this film isn't whether it was good or bad, but "why?"

Johnny Frank Garret raped and killed a nun and is put to death for his heinous crime then returns to exact revenge upon those responsible and their families.

Hardly an original concept, in fact we've pretty much seen the same thing several times over and done considerably better.

So what makes this stand out? Decent performances but lesser known actors, and that deep south old time religion vibe which is scary in itself.

I couldn't decide if this film had anti or pro religious messages but regardless was certainly a prominent theme.

Johnny Frank Garrett looks a lot like Charles Manson. You know Charles Manson? That guy everyone refers to as one of the worlds most famous serial killers even though he didn't actually kill a single person. Seriously, look it up. We live in a glorious age where information is readily available at our fingertips yet people still think that Manson was a killer, that the earth is flat and that pineapple isn't allowed on pizza! The biggest flaw of JFGLW is that its all so confusing, as with many movies of this genre the "Being(s)" don't follow any natural rules so it all gets a bit weird as the creators as making stuff up as they go along. Like Doctor Who when he and he comrades were in space aboard a ship and there was a bad guy in with them so they shot the windscreen out and he got sucked out into deepspace. Did nobody writing that see a problem there? Unoriginal concept, sketchy creation, pretty poor but saved due to a decent cast.

The movie is based on a true story. A nun was raped, beaten, and murdered in her convent bedroom in Amarillo, Texas, on Halloween night 1981. The police arrested Johnny Frank Garrett, a developmentally challenged (possibly) 17-year old. Johnny maintained his innocence throughout but was found guilty and sentenced to death. The trial was a quickie featuring a corrupt D. A., inept defense counsel, a psychic, suppressed evidence, and an impatient jury all too eager to get home for dinner or maybe to church for a prayer meeting.

On the night of his execution ten years later -- he now looks like Charles Manson -- he scribbles out a florid, over-the-top letter damning the people and their families who helped send him to his demise, putting a curse on them and their future generations.

And here's where the what-if starts. What if his spirit or whatever possessed him came back for actual vengeance?

The filmmakers have the answer. They start by killing a few of those on Johnny's "cursed list." First his grade school teacher and a character witness in the trial - apprently not very helpful to his case - commits suicide in front of her elementary school students using pencils, of all things.

An 80-year old "church lady" juror tumbles down a flight of stairs in the dark. The husband of a psychic involved in the trial is killed in a suicide car crash.

One of the jurors, loving father and husband Adam Redman (hunkish Mike Doyle) engages in some dot-connecting and takes it upon himself to break the curse when his son is suddenly struck with nightmares, seizures, and a life-threatening heart ailment with just days to live. Adam, you see, was the lone holdout for not guilty, but quickly, weakly folded under pressure from the other eleven jurors.

The violence and creepiness escalate as Adam tracks down another possible suspect and confronts the cartoonishly evil district attorney Danny Hill (Sean Patrick Flannery).

The movie throws off a heavy handed Texas Gothic vibe. The flashback scenes are done in a vague sepia tone. The jury looks like something out of rural Texas 1950. Some of the homes and buildings look dated and cluttered. Kudos to Shreveport, Louisiana for serving as a spooky stand in for Amarillo. Cult classic Carnival of Souls also gets a mention in a seedy motel room segment.

To be sure, the acting is often over-wrought. The psychic, played by Sue Rock, is especially outlandish. The D. A., who has an oddly Deep South, not West Texas accent, is deliciously, comically malevolent. The teacher is in - what is the clinical term? - stage five cray-cray.

But the real problem which prevents this from being better than a 6-rated film, is Johnny, played by Devin Bonnée. If he is cursing people, yet is apparently a good soul since he did not murder the nun, why not start by offing the D. A. and a few of the police? Why go after some old lady juror who was just acting on the evidence presented? Or the little boy who had no direct connection to the trial, who was not even born? And if he has such beyond-the-grave superpowers, why not out the actual killer?

So, it's entertaining in a mindless sort of way. I saw it on a bad-weather Saturday night. Good stay-at-home viewing for when you want to just zone out and not think very much.