Without Evidence

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...

"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.

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.

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.

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.