Evidence

First three quarters of the film is not suited for this genre. Basically the later twists in the film is what makes this movie amazing.

Things i liked :

• Never saw it coming in the end quiet honestly. - Harry Lennix was the best acting in the film while the rest were average, nothing creative really. - Some great scenery in the beginning. - More of a thriller than horror.

Things i disliked:

• Pointless scenes - Crime investigators were quiet redundant in my opinion. - Audience would wonder what might have happened to the murder as it wasn't clear in the end.

DVD worthy, not Cinema :)

There is always something annoying with found footage movies. Still, we keep watching because we want to understand... Want to know...

Keep watching. You will. And will be surprised! "Annoyingly thrilling" could be a genre. Give it a try. You might like it in the end...

Although, to be fair, it tries its best to do something different. By now everyone who's vaguely into horror films will be aware of the B-movie dumping ground which is the 'found footage' genre. You get the first half of the film where you meet whichever shallow, one-dimensional characters are about to get killed in the second act. Then, towards the end, there's plenty of shaky camera-work and holding the camera right up close into people's faces.

Here, we have all that, only it's made clear at the beginning of the film that everyone has died in some weird massacre at a petrol station in a lonely part of America and we have 'proper' film-making where we see the detectives watching the footage recovered from the crime scene. Therefore you have the obligatory character who just won't put the damn camera down. No matter how many people are chopped up in front of her, she still insists on filming every last second for... well, because the movie wouldn't work unless she did, right? 'Evidence' sells itself as 'not just a found footage film' because there are segments of film where it's not found footage. However, despite the bits with the officers being filmed 'normally' the movie could probably have been made without them.

Yeah, you get a little more to the story than just the regular shaky camera and people running through woods in the dark, bur, ultimately, there's not that much more here than your average (or VERY average) found footage film.

If you're a fan of the genre in general then you might like this. If you're bored of found footage then there's not an awful lot here that will change your mind.

This film is a mess. By the time all the details have been revealed, I could not have cared less. I generally will watch found footage films, even though I am often disappointed, however I don't remember being less interested in a found footage film than I was in this one. I was interested in seeing this film, I enjoyed "The Fourth Kind" (the director's previous effort) and I like the actors in the film.

I found myself unable to get involved in the plot and it just did not generate any suspense which is vital for a found footage film. Whatever kind of film you are making, you are trying to tell a story and if you lose viewers at the beginning it's awful difficult to get them back interested. Hopefully, the director's next effort will be more successful. All I can say is skip this one!

EVIDENCE has some nice "whodunit" qualities and keeps you guessing. There's also a hard-to-foresee twist at the end. Still, the surprises are not entirely earned, and the story just doesn't add up. Generally good acting, but nothing spectacular. The "found footage"--yep, it's another one of THOSE--of people screaming, burning, and crawling around on the darkened floor predominates and gets pretty tiresome after a while. The present-day police investigation is much more interesting: More of it and less of what they find on all the charred phones would have made this a much better film.

One good thing: EVIDENCE's makers did their best to rely on real suspense instead of blatant schlock & gore.