TedMichaelMor 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.

thinker1691 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. ****

ajakbleedingheart 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.

Robert J. Maxwell 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.