Found footage films have been done to death, but it seems that there are a few filmmakers are still finding some unique ways to make them work. The latest Evidence uses found footage mixed with traditional filmmaking together to tell a story, but does this mix work well together or is it just another in a long line of an overdone genre?
Evidence follows a detective on the hunt for a killer, but all they have to go by is video footage shot by the victims during the massacre. At first this film struggles a bit to find its way and is a bit hard to really get into with the footage bouncing back and forth from the found footage to the standard format, but eventually it finds its footing. For this structure it would have worked a bit better to not have such long breaks between the scenes with the detectives watching the footage as you get sucked in which is great, but then pulls you out and you are forced to readjust your focus which was a bit distracting. Once it gets going and things really start to happen it churns out a pretty intriguing who-dun it killer flick. It would have been a bit more effective if the kills weren’t so hard to see with the found footage, but they took some interesting chances that for the most part worked. There isn’t really all that much gore, but the kills you do get to see well are pretty entertaining. The performances were decent enough with no one really standing out, but executing the needed performances well enough for the film to be effective.
While for the most part this film is pretty average and even predictable on some level, it does a good job melding these two film styles together, it just takes a bit to get used to it. What makes the overall film really come together is the cleverly crafted ending that may not be breaking in molds in the genre, but it did make for an interesting direction and fun finale.