Not to be confused with the 2012 found-footage horror film of the same name (which I'll get to reviewing some time in the near future), Evidence takes the "found-footage" sub-genre in a very different - and more interesting - direction than the one we've been used to in the past. As anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention has probably noticed, the market has become more and more saturated with shaky-cam, "gotta film it all, even if it kills us!" found-footage films, and most of them aren't very good (and I say that as someone for whom the sub-genre is a guilty pleasure). The premise of the film is that there has been a massacre at an abandoned gas station, and the only clues that the police have to go on are the four cameras (digital and phone) that the victims used to film what lead to their eventual deaths.
In effect, therefore, we have two sets of protagonists in this film - the police and forensics team who are working to put the tapes back together in the right order in the hopes of finding the killer - and who are effectively a part of the audience along with us - and the people on the tapes. The central characters in the latter group are aspiring actress Leann and her filmmaker friend Rachel; Rachel is filming their trip to Vegas when they and the other bus passengers find themselves stranded at a gas station in the middle of the desert and picked off, one by one, by a killer wearing overalls and a welding mask whose weapon of choice is a blowtorch.
As I said above, having four different sets of footage that together tell the whole story is a more interesting take on the whole found footage theme than usual; especially as each piece of footage contains different events or different angles and therefore different clues as to what really happened that night. This means that the full picture of what happened at the abandoned gas station only becomes clear as the police find, clean and view each piece of footage in the right order, which also adds a whodunit theme to the film. This also encourages the audience to come to their own conclusions as to who the killer is, of course - although some may figure it out before the cops do. The numerous false leads sprinkled throughout the film can also be a little frustrating, especially as some of them are a little too obviously there to lead people off-track.
On the subject of frustrating, however... The film’s ending, where the killer and their motive is finally revealed, is not one of the best parts of the film. It is presented in such a way that it feels more like a cheap copy of the climaxes to the various Saw movies, and parts of it just make no sense whatsoever (and are logistically impossible as well). In a film that for the most part has felt like the careful assembly of a jigsaw puzzle, the ending feels like the final pieces were just hammered in regardless of whether they actually fit in the spaces or not.
Another jarring flaw in the movie (at least for me) is the killer’s choice of weapon, the blowtorch. As methods of movie murder go, it's pretty original and squirmishly unpleasant, certainly. However, in one scene the killer uses that blowtorch to dismember a live, screaming victim in single sweeping movements, as though it was a sword or scythe. The problem is that that’s not how blowtorches work. It would take several minutes to completely sever a limb using a blowtorch, not seconds with a single sweep as happens here. Am I being pedantic? Maybe, but it took me out of the film with its ridiculousness and that’s never good.
That’s not to say that these issues are too much for the film to come back from. It holds the attention well and keeps the audience guessing; overall it’s enjoyable to watch and clever in its use of the found-footage motif. Certainly there are far worse films out there (I know; I've seen them and will probably review them at some point), and it’s a fun enough way to spend 90 minutes or so. (And yes, that is Vampire Bill in the role of the police detective.)
Comments