I rented this film without knowing anything about it and not expecting much more than a mediocre mystery. However, it's actually a very well done film, both in terms of story and character development. The story takes awhile to unfold as the first part of the film is focused on building characters and a sense of the town in which they live. This in itself is interesting as it comes across in a natural way and gives the viewer the feeling that these people are real human beings. Then we begin to follow a trail of clues both in the present and through flashbacks to the era of the crime. A mistake and a crime happened a long time ago on an abandoned country road. One man has been executed because of it. Others are forced to hide the truth, either to protect themselves or the people they care about. I can't say too much more without giving away the ending, but I think you'll find yourself pulled deeply into the story just as I did. If you enjoyed "Lone Star" then you'll probably enjoy this film too. Please don't dismiss it because it's a made for TV movie as it's certainly better than many theater films.
27 Reviews
Digging up the Past
rmax30482316 April 2003
I can see why some viewers might not get much out of this production. It is low budget, it is made for TV, it doesn't have a bankable performer, it doesn't have a car chase, not a shot is fired, nobody shouts at anyone else, there's very little blood and no violence, the courtroom scenes are there for exposition only and not drama, and we don't get to see Angelina Jolie nude.
What we have instead of a Hollywood blockbuster is a deliberately paced and complicated mystery that's sufficiently well done to deserve a good scrutiny on the part of people who make Hollywood blockbusters.
David Strathairn, a reliable actor, is a writer who returns to his home town to investigate a crime in which a man was executed for something he may or may not have done. The story emerges through the course of his investigation. Most of his informants are reluctant, if not downright hostile to his prying into this old affair. And the story really is complex, enough so that at times it is barely strong enough to carry the rest of this above-average flick. The crime, the subsequent trial, and related events come in snippets. Sometimes we don't know where a particular snippet fits and therefore why it's there in the first place. Stathairn's mother, we find out, was once tried for practicing medicine without a license in this rural benighted Alabama town. So what? He's supposed to be investigating a murder and here is his Mom on trial for performing magic tricks or something. A severe case of asthma seems to emerge out of nowhere to play an important part of the story. The ending pulls it all together, if you've managed to keep the characters and their motives straight, but it's rather a long haul.
But, especially considering the budget, the iconography could hardly be improved upon. The location looks right, whether it was filmed in Vancouver or not. (I suspect some of the interiors at least were shot in the studios in Wilmington, North Carolina.) In the flashbacks girls wear those ugly thick stocking that might have been common in Southern mountain communities forty years ago.
And for the most part the acting is far superior to what one might expect from such a venture. Man, these people have strong faces. Strathairn is no glamor boy, thank God. His shoulders slope down to nothingness, which is nice. And he doesn't miss a trick in his performance. Neither do most of the others, with the exception of a sheriff who comes across as a kind of mechanical stand in for the kind of human beings we can discern in the other characters. The elderly retired prosecutor, weeping with loss and guilt, never able to hold his own child, is a touching portrait rendered by a memorable actor. Mary McDonald is the kind of woman that every Hollywood sexpot should turn into if this were a good world. Her not-quite-pretty features are large and expressive. Her hair is a cowl of floppy deep blackish-red. And her voice -- what a voice! It is the soothing, understated voice of a concerned but somewhat distant shrink, with a bit of red-eye gravy in it. Her movements are smooth and languorous. She stretches luxuriantly, like an animal, without ever overdoing the sexuality she emanates. But she can turn up her instrument when the situation calls for it, from lento, say, to moderato, without ever screaming. (For an instructive contrast, it's interesting to watch "Witness for the Prosecution," probably a better film, in which the characters are engagingly hammy.)
The director handles all of these characters in their often-unrelated scenes as deftly as possible. He moves the bodies around efficiently. Nobody steps in front of anyone else. And the director's technique matches the leisure of the performances. No shock cuts. No stingers in the score or editing. A few touches stand out. Sometimes we see a reenactment of the crime taking place in Strathairn's imagination, from his point of view. In one of them, the victim, a young girl, is trapped in a most prickly looking leafless bush. The shot is all in grayish tones, almost black and white, except for a startling patch of bright green -- her dress, which is an important datum. At another point in the film, the writer is imagining the victim standing at the side of a hairpin turn on a country road. Like some other flashbacks, this one is tinted slightly yellow. (Better than shivering dissolve, no?) Again from his point of view, we see the girl in medium shot, flapping her arms with impatience, obviously waiting for someone or something, although we don't know who or what, until she stops shifting around, turns slowly and stares deliberately into the camera. It is, trust me on this, an extremely eerie moment. And done almost offhandedly, almost without effort.
What we have instead of a Hollywood blockbuster is a deliberately paced and complicated mystery that's sufficiently well done to deserve a good scrutiny on the part of people who make Hollywood blockbusters.
David Strathairn, a reliable actor, is a writer who returns to his home town to investigate a crime in which a man was executed for something he may or may not have done. The story emerges through the course of his investigation. Most of his informants are reluctant, if not downright hostile to his prying into this old affair. And the story really is complex, enough so that at times it is barely strong enough to carry the rest of this above-average flick. The crime, the subsequent trial, and related events come in snippets. Sometimes we don't know where a particular snippet fits and therefore why it's there in the first place. Stathairn's mother, we find out, was once tried for practicing medicine without a license in this rural benighted Alabama town. So what? He's supposed to be investigating a murder and here is his Mom on trial for performing magic tricks or something. A severe case of asthma seems to emerge out of nowhere to play an important part of the story. The ending pulls it all together, if you've managed to keep the characters and their motives straight, but it's rather a long haul.
But, especially considering the budget, the iconography could hardly be improved upon. The location looks right, whether it was filmed in Vancouver or not. (I suspect some of the interiors at least were shot in the studios in Wilmington, North Carolina.) In the flashbacks girls wear those ugly thick stocking that might have been common in Southern mountain communities forty years ago.
And for the most part the acting is far superior to what one might expect from such a venture. Man, these people have strong faces. Strathairn is no glamor boy, thank God. His shoulders slope down to nothingness, which is nice. And he doesn't miss a trick in his performance. Neither do most of the others, with the exception of a sheriff who comes across as a kind of mechanical stand in for the kind of human beings we can discern in the other characters. The elderly retired prosecutor, weeping with loss and guilt, never able to hold his own child, is a touching portrait rendered by a memorable actor. Mary McDonald is the kind of woman that every Hollywood sexpot should turn into if this were a good world. Her not-quite-pretty features are large and expressive. Her hair is a cowl of floppy deep blackish-red. And her voice -- what a voice! It is the soothing, understated voice of a concerned but somewhat distant shrink, with a bit of red-eye gravy in it. Her movements are smooth and languorous. She stretches luxuriantly, like an animal, without ever overdoing the sexuality she emanates. But she can turn up her instrument when the situation calls for it, from lento, say, to moderato, without ever screaming. (For an instructive contrast, it's interesting to watch "Witness for the Prosecution," probably a better film, in which the characters are engagingly hammy.)
The director handles all of these characters in their often-unrelated scenes as deftly as possible. He moves the bodies around efficiently. Nobody steps in front of anyone else. And the director's technique matches the leisure of the performances. No shock cuts. No stingers in the score or editing. A few touches stand out. Sometimes we see a reenactment of the crime taking place in Strathairn's imagination, from his point of view. In one of them, the victim, a young girl, is trapped in a most prickly looking leafless bush. The shot is all in grayish tones, almost black and white, except for a startling patch of bright green -- her dress, which is an important datum. At another point in the film, the writer is imagining the victim standing at the side of a hairpin turn on a country road. Like some other flashbacks, this one is tinted slightly yellow. (Better than shivering dissolve, no?) Again from his point of view, we see the girl in medium shot, flapping her arms with impatience, obviously waiting for someone or something, although we don't know who or what, until she stops shifting around, turns slowly and stares deliberately into the camera. It is, trust me on this, an extremely eerie moment. And done almost offhandedly, almost without effort.
Well-Executed Low-Key Whodunit
janbi369 May 1999
This is one of my favorite types of movie: thoughtful, shy writer pieces together events from fifty years ago, exonerates an innocent man and discovers something important about himself in the process. The movie doesn't try to do too much, gives you enough information about the primary characters without leaving you wondering if there was more background in the book.
I've always liked David Straithairn and he gives an easy portrayal of the main character. Mary McDonnell is good as the unjustly convicted murderer's daughter though I could have done without the halting, "don't really care about anything" accent/tone. Definitely worth seeing if you're into the story-type movie.
I've always liked David Straithairn and he gives an easy portrayal of the main character. Mary McDonnell is good as the unjustly convicted murderer's daughter though I could have done without the halting, "don't really care about anything" accent/tone. Definitely worth seeing if you're into the story-type movie.
a cut above the usual TV movie
blanche-22 May 2013
A good litmus test of whether a movie is good is to ask, if it didn't have stars, would this have been a TV movie? Evidence of Blood is a TV movie where one asks, if this film had big stars, would this have made a good feature? Yes, it would.
Filmed in Canada, "Evidence of Blood" is the story of writer Jason Kinley (David Strathairn) returning to his home town in Georgia and becoming involved in a 40-year murder case. The case is the murder of a young girl, Ellie Dinker, whose body was never found. Jackson's recently deceased childhood friend Ray had been looking into it, and left him a clue - what looks like a twig or small tree branch.
Dora Overton (McDonnell), who owns a bar, was Ray's girlfriend. Her father was convicted of the murder and executed, but she doesn't believe he did it and wanted the truth. She still wants it. Jackson, drawn to her, says he'll find it.
As Jackson talks to people who were involved in the case or who remember the people, a picture emerges, and it's a strange one. There is a lot more to the case than meets the eye. And Jackson begins to realize that there's a lot more to him too, as he has a recurring dream that he can't shake.
Moody, atmospheric, well acted drama with a few twists that make for a fascinating story. The film goes back and forth from the trial or events leading up to the murder and back to the present day, with Jackson sometimes getting flashes of memory.
This was streaming on Netflix, then it left and came back. I'm not sure what the story is, but this film apparently isn't on DVD. I hope that it is soon and that others have an opportunity to see it.
Filmed in Canada, "Evidence of Blood" is the story of writer Jason Kinley (David Strathairn) returning to his home town in Georgia and becoming involved in a 40-year murder case. The case is the murder of a young girl, Ellie Dinker, whose body was never found. Jackson's recently deceased childhood friend Ray had been looking into it, and left him a clue - what looks like a twig or small tree branch.
Dora Overton (McDonnell), who owns a bar, was Ray's girlfriend. Her father was convicted of the murder and executed, but she doesn't believe he did it and wanted the truth. She still wants it. Jackson, drawn to her, says he'll find it.
As Jackson talks to people who were involved in the case or who remember the people, a picture emerges, and it's a strange one. There is a lot more to the case than meets the eye. And Jackson begins to realize that there's a lot more to him too, as he has a recurring dream that he can't shake.
Moody, atmospheric, well acted drama with a few twists that make for a fascinating story. The film goes back and forth from the trial or events leading up to the murder and back to the present day, with Jackson sometimes getting flashes of memory.
This was streaming on Netflix, then it left and came back. I'm not sure what the story is, but this film apparently isn't on DVD. I hope that it is soon and that others have an opportunity to see it.
Great film worth seeing.
Chanur21 November 2003
This was done in the manner of Hitchcock. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen. I like that there was no car chases - no obsenities - no violence. I was at first put off by the title with the word blood, but once I saw it - I looked for it again and again. I wish it were available in DVD. I hope there are more like it.
Reasonable thriller
sickofenjoyingmyself5 April 2016
This was a made for TV movie and it's overall quality of screenplay is consistent with what you would normally expect. The story itself has a few twists and turns that keep you guessing and therefore is convincingly engaging as a thriller. David Strathairn was pretty solid in his role but I really did not find Mary Mcdonell very convincing - can't quite pin it exactly but there was something slightly odd about her performance. It does veer towards the unbelievable on a few occasions but it is still an enjoyable watch which is given more credibility with an unpredictable ending which I didn't expect. A good made for TV thriller. Nothing better.
a good mystery
botfeeder9 February 2020
Just an all around good mystery. Good acting, good plot. Was a challenge to keep track of all the clues and characters. Someone with a knack for mysteries would find it a stimulating exercise but would be able to put all the pieces together.
Possibly it could have been a bit shorter and a little less complex and still done justice to the story. But overall it was quite good.
And anyone else who's recently viewed it may have wondered regarding lead actor David Strathairn(sp?), hey is that the guy who was that shady government intelligence official in the Bourne movie? Yes.
Possibly it could have been a bit shorter and a little less complex and still done justice to the story. But overall it was quite good.
And anyone else who's recently viewed it may have wondered regarding lead actor David Strathairn(sp?), hey is that the guy who was that shady government intelligence official in the Bourne movie? Yes.
Good if you like Strathairn
dansview14 February 2014
I like David Strathairn. I'm also a writer who loves small towns and has an interest in the South. So theoretically, this movie is my dream come true. It's about a writer who returns to his small Southern town. But it was really low budget and slow.
Strathairn is not known for his range.This role was a testimonial to that fact. But for whatever reasons, I just love the guy. I guess it's his sensitive face and the intensity he reflects.
I also hate it when non-Southerners try to feign a Southern accent. David did not attempt this here. I suppose it could be explained that his character had been living in N.Y. for years. But Mary McDonnell did it, and it almost ruined the film for me. Ugh! I think a lot of the other actors were faking the accent too and the production values of the flashbacks, etc. were not very good. The plot seemed complex and stacked with clichés. I didn't feel any chemistry between the two leads either.
Having said all that, I did enjoy the setting, regardless of the fact that it was filmed in Canada and not in Georgia. I particularly liked the depiction of the old country homes and the acute familiarity of everyone with each other.
If you have patience and appreciate moody "who dunnit" films, you were probably appreciate this one. I think it was made for T.V., so no real sex or violence, although there were hints of both.
Strathairn is not known for his range.This role was a testimonial to that fact. But for whatever reasons, I just love the guy. I guess it's his sensitive face and the intensity he reflects.
I also hate it when non-Southerners try to feign a Southern accent. David did not attempt this here. I suppose it could be explained that his character had been living in N.Y. for years. But Mary McDonnell did it, and it almost ruined the film for me. Ugh! I think a lot of the other actors were faking the accent too and the production values of the flashbacks, etc. were not very good. The plot seemed complex and stacked with clichés. I didn't feel any chemistry between the two leads either.
Having said all that, I did enjoy the setting, regardless of the fact that it was filmed in Canada and not in Georgia. I particularly liked the depiction of the old country homes and the acute familiarity of everyone with each other.
If you have patience and appreciate moody "who dunnit" films, you were probably appreciate this one. I think it was made for T.V., so no real sex or violence, although there were hints of both.
Watch this film for fine acting, great atmosphere, and simmering intensity
danielmartinx1 June 2012
Very good movie. I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 because, while it did everything it could with the material, there were times when the editing felt very clunky and commercial-timed (which is what a lot of t.v. movies do, when they have to wrap up something and then take it up in the next scene, after the commercial break). Great performances from everyone, lots of Americana and Deep South imagery, enough surprises to keep the plot interesting, and an even tone throughout. The sets were filmed beautifully, and I've never seen country houses with natural wood and stucco look so country-ish. In terms of plot, pacing, acting, composition, etc., there is only good things to say. In other words, watch this film!
Ok entertainment
Meme5731 December 2021
This would have been much more watchable if not for the dreadful fake southern accent of Mary McDonnell. I'm from the South and they never come close on southern accents. It was an interesting movie but pretty predictable.
Good Actors Stuck in Slow-Moving Script
baker-97 December 2000
Warning: Spoilers
While it can be refreshing to see a mystery that isn't rushed and allows actors some breathing room, "Evidence of Blood" still takes too long to start putting all it's pieces together, and then rushes to finish things up. The climax is certainly gripping (though very contrived), but it still leaves some questions hanging in the air. Was the late Sheriff murdered? The film certainly hints at it more than once. And what was the real connection -if any - between the murdered woman and the man who was wrongly accused of her death? And the film drops the device of having Strathairn's character watch the video interview of a serial killer he's using as a book subject. That device doesn't illuminate the writer's character all that much, and it's existence only seems to matter for the killer's line "You never know who you really are" (or something like that), which figures at the film's denouement.
David Strathairn is an excellent actor with the uncanny ability to subtly make his characters seem more complex than they may be on paper (certainly the case here). Mary McDonnell does well enough, and both she and Strathairn are a good match (though I'll admit that Strathairn had more sexual chemistry with Julianne Moore in a brief scene in "A Map Of The World" than he does with McDonnell.
David Strathairn is an excellent actor with the uncanny ability to subtly make his characters seem more complex than they may be on paper (certainly the case here). Mary McDonnell does well enough, and both she and Strathairn are a good match (though I'll admit that Strathairn had more sexual chemistry with Julianne Moore in a brief scene in "A Map Of The World" than he does with McDonnell.
A Gem
nbthalia20 February 2016
This is a small band of reviewers who have had the good fortune to experience this minor gem of a movie. I wasn't aware that this film was made for TV, so that was the first surprise. Further surprises followed as the film proceeded to develop into an absorbing and convincing melodrama. I can only agree with the other reviewers that this film scored very highly on most of the requirements of great entertainment. The acting was thoughtful, measured and very convincing. Was this because the actors were not "stars"? I would say absolutely so, because faces that are new to one do not distract from the thrust of the story, thus enhancing the sense of reality. The female lead, for me, managed to create one of the most erotic portrayals I have ever seen. She managed to smoulder without any apparent effort. Guess she's just a naturally sexy lady.
Mary McDonnell acting / amount of characters
beachrox24 May 2020
There were too many characters to keep track of. Especially considering there were flashbacks of all these characters when they were younger, featuring other actors. So we had to figure out which younger actor was playing the older character. Which would be fine if there weren't so many characters. Even with just 20 minutes left, more characters are introduced and a whole other storyline.
McDonnell's acting here is shockingly bad. I think she's supposed to be mysterious and sexy but she's just annoying and fake. Her voice, her accent, her drawl -- all horrible and cringe-inducing. Sometimes I had to forward through her scenes.
McDonnell's acting here is shockingly bad. I think she's supposed to be mysterious and sexy but she's just annoying and fake. Her voice, her accent, her drawl -- all horrible and cringe-inducing. Sometimes I had to forward through her scenes.
masterpiece of the genre
sheckie6 March 2000
Andrew Mondshein has obviously been paying attention. He has created an almost flawless bit of storytelling. From beginning to end its hauntingly beautiful and thought provoking. I compare it favorably to the best works of John Sayles, possibly the finest contemporary american filmmaker. Is it a coincidence that two Sayles veterans David Strathairn and Mary McConnell are excellent in this movie??
Its structure is complicated, but it is handled with a deft hand. Bernadette Kelly's editing is seamless. I recommend it very highly to anyone who enjoys a good whodunit or simply a wonderfully crafted entertainment. It certainly does not seem like a TV movie, even if it is a Canadian production, which, of course, are usually superior. Give it many stars.
Its structure is complicated, but it is handled with a deft hand. Bernadette Kelly's editing is seamless. I recommend it very highly to anyone who enjoys a good whodunit or simply a wonderfully crafted entertainment. It certainly does not seem like a TV movie, even if it is a Canadian production, which, of course, are usually superior. Give it many stars.
Well worth watching
Marie-76 February 2000
I just happened to turn this on and was very pleasantly surprised. The actors were understated if anything and the plot was very interesting. I came up with several solutions before the ending revealed I was so very wrong. Even Mary McC's accent wasn't too bad. Recommend it highly.
Kudos to anyone who can follow the plot in one viewing and without having read the book first.
Pied-Pfeffer2 July 2015
This movie is a classic example of "whodunnit" where a few red herrings are included and the mystery isn't resolved until the end. I enjoy this kind of movie, including this one.
The challenge is that there are at least 15 key characters to the story. Some are never seen but mentioned. A few are shown in flashbacks as well as present day. Their jobs and relationships are key to the story. It doesn't take long for it to become confusing.
I enjoyed the film enough to view it a second time with pauses in order to take notes and then refer back to them. The plot, acting and pace are solid. It's the script and/or amount of allotted that prevents it from being a really good movie.
The challenge is that there are at least 15 key characters to the story. Some are never seen but mentioned. A few are shown in flashbacks as well as present day. Their jobs and relationships are key to the story. It doesn't take long for it to become confusing.
I enjoyed the film enough to view it a second time with pauses in order to take notes and then refer back to them. The plot, acting and pace are solid. It's the script and/or amount of allotted that prevents it from being a really good movie.
" I have found the Guilty party and really don't want to know any more "
thinker169111 November 2009
Somewhere in the annals of court cases, we have gone from the slow approach of Perry Mason's time, to the quick, try'em and fry'em dramas of today. In such cases, audiences become privy to the horrid details which modern audiences eagerly hunger for today. In past eras, we were offered only superficial illegalities and dry bed room antics of stereotypical cardboard characters. It appears nostalgia is not dead. The film is called " Evidence in Blood " and it stars perhaps one of the most underrated actors of the day. David Strathairn aptly plays Jackson Kinley a Pulitzer prize winning author who's invited to witness a state execution. The case seems closed when he receives information his older brother has passed away. Returning home, he sifts through his brother's personal items and discovers a collection of odds and ends which puzzle him enough to began a new investigation. When Dora Overton (Mary McDonnell) the executed man's daughter visits him, she confesses she believes, her father was innocent of the murder and wrongly convicted. With a gnawing suspicion she may have been right, Kinley begins to uncover a growing collection of evidence of a massive conspiracy by towns-folks. Despite the danger, drama and subtle excitement, the writer realizes his own family's culpability, beginning with his law-enforcement brother, covering up something which he realizes too late. With Strathairn shoring up the brunt of the story, the film does not provide sufficient support for his efforts. As a result, the movie supports itself with good courtroom settings, flash-back images and complex conversations which if you miss any of it, will leave you guessing. Nevertheless, fans will appreciate David Strathairn's work which stands accordingly. ****
Seen it all before....many times.
=G=20 October 2002
A writer (Strathairn) returns to his roots at the death of a friend only to find himself investigating a decades old murder which sent a man to the electric chair on circumstantial evidence. That's the gist of this very ordinary journeyman whodunnit flick which can't conceal what it is; a low budget t.v. product made in Canada. "Evidence of Blood" does nothing to distinguish itself from scores of similar films which are built around a recycled plot tweaked to appear unique. An ordinary couch potato watch at best. (C-)
Quiet Masterwork
TedMichaelMor5 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
One reviewer described this movie as graceful. It is graceful. This interpretation by Darlene Young of Mr. Cook's novel provides a core that director Andrew Mondsheim turns into an elegantly elegiac narrative. Editing by Bernadette Kelly of Philip Linzey's imaginative cinematography recalls her work on "Dead Ringers" and "Naked Lunch". Ed Hana's production design is subtle and finely nuanced. I particularly like the iconography in the courtroom scenes. The set design there and elsewhere by Megan Less is like her work in other good movies including "The Virgin Suicides". I like the scenes in the dinner. I love the edit to someone cutting hair in a barbershop after a reference that someone the protagonist wants to interview cuts hair. I thought that a lovely and small touch. It made me think of Goddard.
Casting impresses me. Mr. Strahairn and Ms. McDonnell perform well together. I like baker-9's thoughtful review of this movie and his observations about the acting. I am a fan of Ms. McDonnell, however. I think she is compelling in her portrayal here. Mr. Strahairn does quietly give a sense of depth to his characters. All the actors convinced me as part of the narrative.
The overall film design, with some use of filters in retrospective scenes works—without being distractingly stylized.I agree with reviewer skeckie that this is an almost flawless film narrative. The score stresses the narrative perfectly even though I am one who likes scores that—well work in a different way. In a way, the film recalls in its own way themes from films by Alain Resnais. I understand why someone might find this movie derivative, slow, and repetitive, I do not respond to it that way. I very much enjoyed this lovely little movie. I find it tender and thoughtful.
This is at least as good as many BBC mystery films. Savour it.
Casting impresses me. Mr. Strahairn and Ms. McDonnell perform well together. I like baker-9's thoughtful review of this movie and his observations about the acting. I am a fan of Ms. McDonnell, however. I think she is compelling in her portrayal here. Mr. Strahairn does quietly give a sense of depth to his characters. All the actors convinced me as part of the narrative.
The overall film design, with some use of filters in retrospective scenes works—without being distractingly stylized.I agree with reviewer skeckie that this is an almost flawless film narrative. The score stresses the narrative perfectly even though I am one who likes scores that—well work in a different way. In a way, the film recalls in its own way themes from films by Alain Resnais. I understand why someone might find this movie derivative, slow, and repetitive, I do not respond to it that way. I very much enjoyed this lovely little movie. I find it tender and thoughtful.
This is at least as good as many BBC mystery films. Savour it.
skeletons
ajakbleedingheart9 November 2007
This movie reminded me of all the "skeletons" that I found in my "grandparents" past. How much do you know about old pictures or the people you see? I found that the slight smile meant something. How many people really want to talk about there past. The cast brought us back in time and made us remember, their time. What would you do? When I watched this movie, I remember thinking to myself, Thank God, I live in the "today". And that I found those skeleton's in the closest!! I enjoyed the movie because it let the characters be, understandable. Their on the that brink, between, reality and the past. What is the truth or memories. Why would someone "cover" a accident up. The movie explains all of our fears,"why did you not tell me"? Staying in the house was so clear to me, a daughter, "left" by her father. Trying to find out why. And a man who only has questions about his past.
weak
Mickey Knox29 January 2001
How come this movie has such a big rating??? I have no idea. It's a really weak and boring crime movie, actually the worst one i've seen. The characters are poorly built, the action isn't convincing enough, and the acting is very very bad. My advice: don't watch this unless you have to.
Great Story-telling
jmgutierrez8328 September 2020
I love these old school movies with interesting characters, a mystery that keeps you wondering what the heck happened the entire movie, and a great revealing twist in the end; unlike today's movies, there were no cliches or filler. A good watch.
Twisted mystery
fmwongmd30 August 2020
Good enough to watch twice
husker773324 February 2021
I was not expecting this movie to be very good but was pleasantly surprised. I thought the acting was excellent. The development of the chracters was excellent. It threw me a bit for loop because it deals with two time periods and instead of using make up on the chracters to show them younger then older it used different actors for the different time periods. The story was good. Some have criticized the ending, I think because the solution to the story moves very quickly at the end in a little different pace than the rest of the movie, maybe so but not any real detriment. It is one that is worth watching to the its conconclusion.
Almost complete...
heydanno7 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
For me, this movie would have felt complete if we were given the pleasure of seeing the female lead's reaction to the big reveal about her father. I really wanted to see that because we cared about her and knew how tortured she was over her father.
I admit that I was tricked into getting annoyed about the 'convenient' visit by the clerk to the lead's temp house where she gave him the 'revealing' page of court testimony that the victim's mother had poured over for years. I was thinking, "Oh sure. A break in the case via such a contrived find." Umm... was I wrong! The fact that the victim's mother never truly identified the green dress only led down a rabbit hole. It did not actually mean anything and did not help the writer solve the case.
I admit that I was tricked into getting annoyed about the 'convenient' visit by the clerk to the lead's temp house where she gave him the 'revealing' page of court testimony that the victim's mother had poured over for years. I was thinking, "Oh sure. A break in the case via such a contrived find." Umm... was I wrong! The fact that the victim's mother never truly identified the green dress only led down a rabbit hole. It did not actually mean anything and did not help the writer solve the case.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
