Without Evidence

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...