I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

A Disappointing Continuation

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

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.

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. ****

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.

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.