Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

I have found out much about this film and its backstory simply by reading a few other reviews. I want to thank these reviewers for pointing out what I would have never known.Firstly, I did not know this film was based on actual events. I believe the murder took place in 1981. The bare-bones facts were also pretty much in tact: the murderer raped and then stabbed a nun to death. Johnny Garrett was only 17 at the time of this murder, which I don't think makes any difference in Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to death. Here is where things got just a little too squirrelly for me.It seems there was one juror who did not think the man was guilty. Instead of holding out for a "hung jury," he decides to cast the dye and sentence Johnny to death. Why? Was it because he was just worn down by the other 11 jurors? The entire trial process seemed "rushed." I never heard one single objection from the defendant's attorney.Flash forward 10 years. While Johnny is awaiting his execution by lethal injection, he pens a cursed letter letting everyone know he will "come back to haunt them, their families, and their families' families." I believe he was just a little ticked! And, as promised, after his death, certain people begin to die.I thought the director and writer completely missed their marks here. What was supposed to be a tale of vengeance, turns into a big mixed bag of nothing and left me asking lots of questions, i.e. if Johnny was after vengeance, why wasn't the crooked district attorney the first person he went after? Confusion reigned. Rated "R" for language and violence. Not that bad, but not good enough to recommend.

*** This review may contain spoilers *** I thought when I read the film story, the film was good, because the idea is excellent, you can get out of a good movie. But I was disappointed when I saw it, because it is worth more than 10/1, terrorism does not exist in the real sense, the film did not get the horror atmosphere myself or bloody horror, the story only "one juror trying to prove innocence of the accused who was executed for rape and murder , To get rid of the curse that made one member of his family sick!

Very good and exciting thriller/horror film by director Simon Rumley. I was a fan of "Fashionista", which he last directed, and so naturally I was inclined to like this as well. Fans of horror will like this movie as it is a good movie to watch with a group of friends or a date. I really recommend watching this for those who like films like this.

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).