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.
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.