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.
