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.
14 Reviews
About the same quality as a true crime TV show
ksandness22 March 2018
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.
Conviction without evidence
DEPRESSEDcherry7 March 2021
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.
Not Over Yet
jack_onthenet6 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
*** possible spoilers ***
I come across this film today and I like it very much. The film is very solid, very logical, very real, presented no evidence but every clue pointing to the suspected mastermind behind the murder -- the "suit", a state officer in the Correction System, came from some other state, got trouble in some sex deal which was in the newspapers.
Quite naturally they could not put the name in the film but that's enough information to inspire me to Google up a little more. I simply started with "Michael Francke murder" and the first match popped up answered it all and revealed, to my surprise, the case is having fresh new breakthroughs.
The Willamette Week news story dated Nov. 17, 2004 says, "Now the old case is heating up thanks to a document that never surfaced in the trial of Francke's murderer or his subsequent appeal. It was discovered not by a zealous defense lawyer but by the dead man's brother, who found it last month in an old box of evidence..." Anybody interested can just search it and read more details. It's very interesting to read and tallies with different clues in this film, or even not-the-clues in this film.
This is an amazing story because it's real. It's no Hollywood. It's no hamburger. It's no Tom Cruise or Sylvester Stallone fighting a two-hour quick shot. It takes fifteen and probably even more years of a man's life to fight against not only a single bad apple but a bad apple tree. Not for himself, but for his brother.
I like this film and I expect the sequel, both for the case and this film.
I come across this film today and I like it very much. The film is very solid, very logical, very real, presented no evidence but every clue pointing to the suspected mastermind behind the murder -- the "suit", a state officer in the Correction System, came from some other state, got trouble in some sex deal which was in the newspapers.
Quite naturally they could not put the name in the film but that's enough information to inspire me to Google up a little more. I simply started with "Michael Francke murder" and the first match popped up answered it all and revealed, to my surprise, the case is having fresh new breakthroughs.
The Willamette Week news story dated Nov. 17, 2004 says, "Now the old case is heating up thanks to a document that never surfaced in the trial of Francke's murderer or his subsequent appeal. It was discovered not by a zealous defense lawyer but by the dead man's brother, who found it last month in an old box of evidence..." Anybody interested can just search it and read more details. It's very interesting to read and tallies with different clues in this film, or even not-the-clues in this film.
This is an amazing story because it's real. It's no Hollywood. It's no hamburger. It's no Tom Cruise or Sylvester Stallone fighting a two-hour quick shot. It takes fifteen and probably even more years of a man's life to fight against not only a single bad apple but a bad apple tree. Not for himself, but for his brother.
I like this film and I expect the sequel, both for the case and this film.
where did the ending go.....
shood97 March 2003
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.
A great movie for insomniacs!
goertzen-314 October 2001
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
Simple sell. Advertised with Jolie. Crappy movie.
alltakes20 June 2023
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 - a totally dreadful film
sallymackintosh8 November 2015
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.
This is movie was based on an actual murder that took place
cardwelllinda2 June 2017
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!!!!!!!
Case not closed!
noxqquall20 October 2005
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!
True Crime
Freedom06028622 August 2021
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.
Complicated murder mystery without special effects
AgDoctor31 August 2003
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.
True Story
oregonlamb25 January 2024
Warning: Spoilers
A bit of bad marketing to sell the movie. Someone put Angelina Jolie on the cover, as if she's seen a lot. No, she's a minor druggie, but connected to the unsavory folks.
Is it fast paced and glitzy? No. Is it dark and grainy? A bit. So what? Now on to the story:
A tragic story of the new Administrator discovering huge corruption in the Oregon Corrections system. He was really awkwardly murdered. Of course there is a patsy, men with cash in bags, another death, twists and frustration along the way.
Since this movie, the innocent man that spent 30 years in prison has had his conviction overturned. Even Michael's family knew he didn't do it.
Apparently there was a gritty version that ended up being sanitized. If anyone has access to "Gathering Evidence," I want to know.
If you live in Oregon, or are interested in this subject, it's worth a watch. Maybe you will know some of the people, as I believe most real names are used.
Is it fast paced and glitzy? No. Is it dark and grainy? A bit. So what? Now on to the story:
A tragic story of the new Administrator discovering huge corruption in the Oregon Corrections system. He was really awkwardly murdered. Of course there is a patsy, men with cash in bags, another death, twists and frustration along the way.
Since this movie, the innocent man that spent 30 years in prison has had his conviction overturned. Even Michael's family knew he didn't do it.
Apparently there was a gritty version that ended up being sanitized. If anyone has access to "Gathering Evidence," I want to know.
If you live in Oregon, or are interested in this subject, it's worth a watch. Maybe you will know some of the people, as I believe most real names are used.
Is it over yet?
redhottcrystal7 July 2004
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
