16 reviews
Without Evidence had a really good, complicated idea of a conspiracy thriller, and I was expecting it to be tense and exciting. But I will say I was disappointed. It isn't the worst movie ever, but as a conspiracy thriller it does fail big time. One redeeming quality was the acting. Scott Plank is fairly good as the brother of the murder victim, and although she is (disappointingly) only in three scenes, Angelina Jolie also impresses. However, they are let down by plodding direction, unconvincing supporting actors and a lacklustre script. Another problem was that the characters and the plot were badly underdeveloped, they tried to get somewhere but because of the script, it never got across. The most disappointing aspect was the ending, the final solution is usually the most riveting thing in a film, but the film completely lacked that.Yes, someone gets convicted of the murder, but we never do find out if they're guilty, or if there's even a conspiracy. Honestly in that case, it needs a sequel, if it ends that abruptly. In conclusion, a disappointing and confusing film (I can't remember the amount of times I was going WHAT? at the screen), that had so much promise, but just failed to deliver. 4/10 Bethany Cox.
- TheLittleSongbird
- May 16, 2009
- Permalink
I put this film in my Amazon Prime queue because I was living in Oregon at the time of Michael Francke's murder.
It starts with a clip from "Unsolved Mysteries," and the rest of the movie has about the same production values, including the cheesy preview scenes. It was fun seeing scenes of Oregon and recognizing a couple of Portland stage actors, but otherwise, I lost interest, despite having seen the story play out in nightly news reports for months.
It starts with a clip from "Unsolved Mysteries," and the rest of the movie has about the same production values, including the cheesy preview scenes. It was fun seeing scenes of Oregon and recognizing a couple of Portland stage actors, but otherwise, I lost interest, despite having seen the story play out in nightly news reports for months.
Written in part by a journalist who has dedicated much of his career to this true story, it unsurprisingly doesn't deviate from the perspective that the conspiracy the movie presents is true.
It may well be the case that the version of events on offer here is the truth, unfortunately, that doesn't guarantee a well-told story. The quality is a little rough around the edges. For a movie so focused on a real-life story, it's really lacking in telling that story. Everything just tends to drift by from scene to scene with very little fleshed out. It gives the impression that the makers were overly cautious, and as such used as little creative license as possible. This movie presents its story at the expense of entertaining you. The main cast do put in a good shift and work well with what they're given. Don't be fooled by the cover as Angelina Jolie isn't in the movie for long, but she does steal the show when she appears.
The ending might well be as far as the story goes at the time of filming, but it won't leave any satisfaction.
- DEPRESSEDcherry
- Mar 6, 2021
- Permalink
- jack_onthenet
- Dec 5, 2004
- Permalink
This had jolie on the front cover (it appears as if she is the main character) so I thought great this should be good. What a joke she is in about 3 scenes. The movie was appalling. It had no plot, just seemed to move from scene to scene with parts missing, and to top it all of did not seem to end. I know not all movies have to have endings but this just seemed to cut off before you find out if he uncovers the cover up and who are the people he should be so scared of. For a true life story it should not be hard to have an ending as it already exists. I think they just got bored filming it, I know I did watching it. If I was Jolie I would sue for associating her name in such a big way. As you may have guessed from this rant this is a crap movie and to avoided at all costs, unless you need help sleeping.
I love movies- I'd watch a movie every day if I had time. There are very few movies I don't watch to the bitter end- even if it's obvious they're duds. But this dud takes the cake. I was watching it with my little brother and after he had drifted off to sleep for the third time I figured this was enough. (Unfortunately I stayed awake the whole time!) So I quit watching. Out of curiosity I checked how much time was left in the movie. Eight minutes. I could not have cared less how it ended. Boring. Boring. Boring. Lots of footage of the "hero" driving a car. Unexplained plot gaps. Very poor level acting. I think it was re-released now because Angela Jolie was in it and she's hot in Hollywood right now. (The movie came out in 1995.) We got it from the new release section in the movie store, and what a rip-off. -This is easily the most boring movie I've ever seen
- goertzen-3
- Oct 13, 2001
- Permalink
I recently watched Without Evidence (1995) on Tubi. The film is based on the true story of a correctional officer who mysteriously disappeared, with a man determined to uncover the truth. As he delves into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance, he encounters witnesses whose accounts don't quite add up. A $1,000,000 reward is offered for information, but will it be enough to solve the case?
Directed by Gil Dennis (Intermission), the film stars Scott Plank (Holes), Anna Gunn (Breaking Bad), Angelina Jolie (Tomb Raider), and Andrew Prine (Gettysburg).
Unfortunately, the main character's performance severely undercuts the film's authenticity. The acting across the board is average, which is surprising given the strength of the cast. The premise had potential, and there's an air of mystery throughout, but the film falters due to weak writing, casting, and execution. Jolie's portrayal is particularly jarring-her youthful, less mature performance makes her feel out of place but still must watch. The low-budget cinematography also does little to elevate the story.
In conclusion, Without Evidence had the ingredients for an intriguing mystery, but poor execution and lackluster performances let it down. I'd rate it a 3.5/10 and recommend skipping it.
Directed by Gil Dennis (Intermission), the film stars Scott Plank (Holes), Anna Gunn (Breaking Bad), Angelina Jolie (Tomb Raider), and Andrew Prine (Gettysburg).
Unfortunately, the main character's performance severely undercuts the film's authenticity. The acting across the board is average, which is surprising given the strength of the cast. The premise had potential, and there's an air of mystery throughout, but the film falters due to weak writing, casting, and execution. Jolie's portrayal is particularly jarring-her youthful, less mature performance makes her feel out of place but still must watch. The low-budget cinematography also does little to elevate the story.
In conclusion, Without Evidence had the ingredients for an intriguing mystery, but poor execution and lackluster performances let it down. I'd rate it a 3.5/10 and recommend skipping it.
- kevin_robbins
- Oct 16, 2024
- Permalink
This movie rides on Angelina Jolie's name (and that's in retrospect looking at it from now)--she's not even a primary character here. She's a passing character here. This is (albeit announced as so) a story based on a real event, that basically follows the storyline to a: "Is that it???" You might as well watch an episode of America's Unsolved Mysteries (or whatever it was called). This takes you through a true occurrence that was never solved. BUT...it leaves you at the same place.... STILL UNSOLVED!!! What's worse is that it doesn't really leave you with anything to "chew" on (i.e., something to talk about at work or with friends/family to talk about). It just...ends. It doesn't even leave you with captions for "if you have seen call..." This movie is essentially HALF a movie that leaves you at the, "What's gonna happen now???" point. And there is no, "What's gonna happen now," the credits start rolling...
Sat and watched this today and have lost an hour and a half of life that we will never get back. The write up was intriguing and Angelina Jolie usually is not associated with rubbish so we watched it. As a true story you would have expected an ending - not in this film, it just stops! The story is really slow and disjointed and never really gets going with anything of any consequence. All expectations of uncovering a conspiracy and identifying the murderer are never founded because the film literally just stops. It was almost as if they got as bored as the audience and gave up. Some of the acting is okay but that is all that can be said really. The sound quality was appalling too. An absolute load of rubbish.
- sallymackintosh
- Nov 7, 2015
- Permalink
"Without Evidence" attempts to weave a gripping narrative centered around crime and conspiracy but ultimately falls short of delivering a compelling experience. Starring Angelina Jolie, the film explores themes of truth and deception, yet its execution leaves much to be desired.
The story follows a journalist who becomes entangled in a web of intrigue while investigating a suspicious death. While the premise has potential, the plot often feels disjointed and predictable, with twists that fail to generate genuine suspense. The pacing is uneven, with moments of tension interspersed with sluggish dialogue that detracts from the overall momentum.
Jolie's performance adds a layer of charisma to her character, but even her talents can't fully elevate the material. The supporting cast, while competent, often feels underutilized, leading to a lack of depth in character development. As a result, the relationships and stakes within the narrative fail to resonate with the audience.
Visually, "Without Evidence" has its moments, but the cinematography doesn't do enough to enhance the story or create a memorable atmosphere. The film's score is functional but lacks the emotional impact needed to elevate key scenes.
In summary, "Without Evidence" is a missed opportunity with a promising premise that ultimately feels flat. Its predictable plot and lack of character depth earn it a 5/10 rating. While it may entertain fans of the genre, those seeking a gripping mystery will likely be left wanting more.
The story follows a journalist who becomes entangled in a web of intrigue while investigating a suspicious death. While the premise has potential, the plot often feels disjointed and predictable, with twists that fail to generate genuine suspense. The pacing is uneven, with moments of tension interspersed with sluggish dialogue that detracts from the overall momentum.
Jolie's performance adds a layer of charisma to her character, but even her talents can't fully elevate the material. The supporting cast, while competent, often feels underutilized, leading to a lack of depth in character development. As a result, the relationships and stakes within the narrative fail to resonate with the audience.
Visually, "Without Evidence" has its moments, but the cinematography doesn't do enough to enhance the story or create a memorable atmosphere. The film's score is functional but lacks the emotional impact needed to elevate key scenes.
In summary, "Without Evidence" is a missed opportunity with a promising premise that ultimately feels flat. Its predictable plot and lack of character depth earn it a 5/10 rating. While it may entertain fans of the genre, those seeking a gripping mystery will likely be left wanting more.
- DramaDiva_ActionQueen
- Oct 17, 2024
- Permalink
If anyone is interested in more info about this case please go to FreeFrankGable.com.The movie was meant to bring attention to an innocent man being sent to prison for a crime he did not commit.If you visit this website you will get up to date info on this case which will make this movie make more since to you.Find out what has happened in this case and what is still happening.The family's of all involved are still looking for the truth and are getting closer as we speak...get up to date info on the corruption in the state of Oregon...read about all the witnesses recanting...check out the message board....read how Jodie is doing these days and hear what Kevin and his family are doing to find out who really killed his brother!
I know how true this story is because my sister lives with a man who this woman had married after the murder took place and when the FBI went looking for her she up and left him. He has since filed for a divorce and meet my sister who lives in Fresno California. Im leaving their names out for specific reasons. So please bear with me. Before her husband had been murdered he suspected his wife might be trying to have him killed and changed his life insurance policy and will leaving his brother everything. After the murder when she tried to collect the money she was extremely upset to find out she wasn't getting a dime and was to leave his property immediately. Angeline Jolie did an excellent job of portraying the woman. This is a must see film!!!!!!!
- cardwelllinda
- Jun 1, 2017
- Permalink
For independent cinema viewers, here is a super-realistic film touted as a true story. This production contains no special effects or actors who were famous at this time. One actress, Angeline Jolie as Jodie, became famous after this film and has starred in roles including Laura Croft, Tomb Raider. Despite the small budget, this film sports a down-to-earth plot with plenty of detailed twists.
Without special effects, this artistic film is suited mainly for the minority-viewing public that enjoys a complicated murder mystery without intervention from the supernatural or Hollywood's frequent sequence of improbable events. Prosecuting attorneys, and fans of murder trials, should see this film.
Without special effects, this artistic film is suited mainly for the minority-viewing public that enjoys a complicated murder mystery without intervention from the supernatural or Hollywood's frequent sequence of improbable events. Prosecuting attorneys, and fans of murder trials, should see this film.
- oregonlamb
- Jan 24, 2024
- Permalink
This is not a bad movie and deserves a better rating.
If some people were expecting a lot of violence and action scenes, they should realize that this is a true crime story and the movie makers could not do so and still remain true to the events as they occurred.
There's some fine performances by Angelina Jolie and Scott Plank, although some of the rest of the cast seem to be amateurs.
It's an interesting story, I recommend it to anyone who is interested in true crime.
If some people were expecting a lot of violence and action scenes, they should realize that this is a true crime story and the movie makers could not do so and still remain true to the events as they occurred.
There's some fine performances by Angelina Jolie and Scott Plank, although some of the rest of the cast seem to be amateurs.
It's an interesting story, I recommend it to anyone who is interested in true crime.
- Freedom060286
- Aug 21, 2021
- Permalink
This movie said it was based on a true story so I thought it might be interesting. From the start the movie was disappointing.Little information is built upon the characters leaving you not knowing enough about any of them for them to be very likable. Just when the movie seems to be going in the right direction it falls short. Situations develop but with little detail. There seemed to be too much information trying to be crammed into the movie.It was like one scene he asked for the autopsy report and ,cut, next scene he gets the report in the mail.Toward the end of the movie I just kept wondering when is the movie going to be over. Then the ending is there and you don't even know it because the whole movie just drags on. It ends so abruptly that you still have questions, but really you could care less if they are answered.A total waste of time and money.
- redhottcrystal
- Jul 6, 2004
- Permalink