Without Evidence

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.

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.

"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 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