(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A small film crew sets out to shoot a paranormal documentary at a farmhouse haunted by legend. What starts as a lighthearted project descends into terror when their footage reveals horrifying evidence that the Boogeyman might be real.”
Ahhh … the ‘found footage format film’!
Again – for clarity’s sake – I realize that a great majority of the vast, vast viewing public has either moved on from this unique sub-genre of Horror filmmaking or simply ignores them for a legitimate number of reasons. Understanding that just not every consumer can tolerate the usual herky-jerkiness of what usually devolves into some high-speed antics, I appreciate that such storytelling just isn’t for everyone anymore. Still, I persevere with them; and I’ve said so because I think that – unlike other styles – the ‘found footage format’ can always have something to say about its characters and subject matter if – and that’s the key word – it’s all attempted with a focus on freshness and originality. In other words: storytellers have to do something different with it almost each and every time it’s employed. Otherwise … seriously … why bother?
Now, Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) tries in small ways to stake out territory all of its own. Planting a documentary film crew at a secluded location where it’s been rumored that a fabled ‘boogeyman’ both exists and continues to practice his (or her) backwood spookery may not seem all that fresh at first blush; but the house explored isn’t some decrepit and dilapidated antediluvian home that’s in need of a building inspector’s condemnation notice. Most of the time, the setting looks far more like a disturbed airBNB than it does an authentic haunted house; so kudos to director Calvin Morie McCarthy (who stars as Calvin) and co-screenwriter Tim Coyle (who also stars as Tim, talk about your typecasting, boys!) for keeping the expenses under control for the purposes of their modest, low-budget chiller.
Sadly, that’s really the only narrative stretch that puts this Boogeyman on fresh ground. Yes, it unfurls pretty much like your standard ‘found footage’ project when allowed; but it also breaks just a bit from the structure by turning the crew’s remaining and last appearances in the form of a documentary assembled after-the-fact by some other peoples or persons. In small ways, that, too, does give Boogeyman a bit of a facelift by comparison to so much of what’s come before; but is that enough to lure an audience beyond the shrinking cadre of fans who still like the ‘found footage format’? Honestly, that question is probably above my humble pay grade, but I’m inclined to think probably not.
Struggling documentarian Calvin has received word from Jim (played by Jim Spence) that there’s something amiss on his property somewhere I believe in the woods outside of Seattle, Washington. Hoping that this could be his chance for filmmaking stardom, he gathers together a somewhat motley band Tim, Eric (Erik Skybak), and Naomi (Naomi Mechem-Miller) to head out into the wilds in hopes of capturing something in camera. What first seems like an incident of slim pickings slowly evolves as the four begin seeing things – shadows and distant figures, mostly – which suggest they’re being watched. But before these fright-filled three days end, each will have been coopted by the spirit of some elusive Boogeyman whose ultimate motivations remains sorely unexplored.
Is it too much to ask for all of the silver screen specters to, at least, have a purpose?
Jump scares aside – and the feature does offer a few good ones – there isn’t enough substance to the Boogeyman ‘legend’ here to get all that excited about. Hell, even the fact that he, she, or it aren’t even afforded a more definitive moniker – i.e. the Seattle Spook, the Backwoods Soul Bandit, Jim the Ghost, etc. – hints at a triteness that the flick rarely rises above; and, as I’ve tried to be clear, audiences do show up minimally expecting the taunted and teased by things they have seen before. As good as the cast is in confronting their growing unease, far too much of this Boogeyman has been done to death (snicker snicker), so perhaps a rewrite or two could’ve added a little more spice to the meal before it was served.
Now, there was a moment wherein I honestly thought Coyle and McCarthy were going to show us something different; and I want to draw some attention to it briefly.
The night after the crew interviewed the ubiquitous Jim – initially presented as little more than a witness/landowner, a character who served to ‘set the stage’ – the four encounter him sitting in the same chair on the same road essentially at the stroke of midnight. The mystery man is speaking to someone; and – to my unlearned ear – it sounded like Jim was saying the same lines he answered his interview questions with. He even predictably rose at one point and marched off in the same practiced cadence with which he left them curiously the first time; and I found myself wondering, “Have these folks found themselves in some kind of time loop?”
Furthermore, the flick does establish that something regarding the passage of time is entirely amiss: at one point, they’re forensically reviewing the audio of barks and howls they recorded the evening before when they happen across a mildly garbled voice saying, “Guys, I can’t see you.” Calvin states that it sounds like Naomi – which it both does and doesn’t to a degree – and then as events unfold we do eventually see when the fetching female host does say that line on the eve of her succumbing to whatever spirit has possessed her. We even see her standing in the night talking to the still seated Jim on the side of the road; and – once again – I found myself thinking that these characters were, one by one, by trapped in some temporary shenanigans. Isn’t she standing there interviewing the man again? Or am I mistaken?
And even furthermore: late in the picture after a few of their faces have gone missing, the forest peculiarly becomes decorated with posters bearing their faces, asking anyone who encounters these possible victims to come forward with clues to their disappearance. Some might quickly dismiss this as a kinda/sorta visual bit merely ‘pulling the legs’ of those still onscreen and watching the story of their friend’s demise take place; but is that all that’s going on? Why would a ghost – the central Boogeyman – have access to, say, a home PC and printer – along with a good Photoshop software – and use such resources in the wild to mindfuck the survivors? Isn’t it increasingly plausible that said phantom possess the ability to move forward and backward in time? To step into tomorrow, gather some posters, and bring them into the recent past to terrorize his casualties?
2022’s Brightwood from writer/director Dane Elcar is one of those unappreciated independent gems that explores the idea of time loops in a slightly similar fashion.
In that film, our two leads – Jen and Dan – are enduring a rift in their relationship: hoping to maybe find some solace by hiking together in the woods, they are eventually confronted by future versions of themselves, each growing more despondent, reckless, and violent all the time. Their characters grew over the course of this curious story to the point wherein we – the audience – watched as they became these volatile scavengers of tomorrow … and it’s this kind of trickery that I think Boogeyman could’ve tapped into that might afforded everyone something to do here beyond simple spirit possession. Soul ownership works, but because it’s been overused – especially in found footage – there’s just nothing all that interesting about it here.
Rather than criticize Boogeyman for things it didn’t do (but maybe hinted at slightly), I’m left with marking this one down as an exercise in roads too often already traveled. Again: it’s fine if that’s all you’re looking for … but the promise for something much greater was still there … and I do so much more appreciated walking down the roads others have ignored.
Lastly, there is a great line that sparks of some promise for the budding filmmakers, and I’d be remiss if I failed to give it the props it deserves. The police officer interviewed onscreen about the kids passing delivers a great but world-weary cynical line about the events. He states that, categorically, he doesn’t believe in boogeymen, and yet he strongly asserts that there is evidence of their existence. That, my friends, is good writing and great sentiments, the kind of focus that does make this Boogeyman worth seeing … if you’re a fan of found footage.
Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) was produced by 7th Street Productions. A quick search of Google.com suggests that the film is available for streaming on such platforms as Tubi, the Roku Channel, Fawesome, and Cranked Up TV. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that – like any other ‘found footage format’ film Boogeyman does employ the usual shaky-cam approach, so consider yourself warned. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, as I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
Recommended … but this one is mostly for those of us who still find something worthy about ‘found footage.’
Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) uses its workable premise – that of the ill-fated movie crew hoping to find the spectral scoop of their short lives – about as well as any other independent picture has. Much of the impact is accomplished via jump scares and the like, and its players move rather effortlessly through their respective paces, going from regular to irregular emotionally as the situations warrant. McCarthy and Mechem-Miller make the best of their screen time – he’s overly pensive to the point of explosiveness and she’s fetching and understandably anxious without trying too hard – so points earned for work well delivered. Ultimately, I prefer Horror that makes me think, and this one did, even if only in small ways.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Breaking Glass Pictures provided me with complimentary streaming access to Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A small film crew sets out to shoot a paranormal documentary at a farmhouse haunted by legend. What starts as a lighthearted project descends into terror when their footage reveals horrifying evidence that the Boogeyman might be real.”
Ahhh … the ‘found footage format film’!
Again – for clarity’s sake – I realize that a great majority of the vast, vast viewing public has either moved on from this unique sub-genre of Horror filmmaking or simply ignores them for a legitimate number of reasons. Understanding that just not every consumer can tolerate the usual herky-jerkiness of what usually devolves into some high-speed antics, I appreciate that such storytelling just isn’t for everyone anymore. Still, I persevere with them; and I’ve said so because I think that – unlike other styles – the ‘found footage format’ can always have something to say about its characters and subject matter if – and that’s the key word – it’s all attempted with a focus on freshness and originality. In other words: storytellers have to do something different with it almost each and every time it’s employed. Otherwise … seriously … why bother?
Now, Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) tries in small ways to stake out territory all of its own. Planting a documentary film crew at a secluded location where it’s been rumored that a fabled ‘boogeyman’ both exists and continues to practice his (or her) backwood spookery may not seem all that fresh at first blush; but the house explored isn’t some decrepit and dilapidated antediluvian home that’s in need of a building inspector’s condemnation notice. Most of the time, the setting looks far more like a disturbed airBNB than it does an authentic haunted house; so kudos to director Calvin Morie McCarthy (who stars as Calvin) and co-screenwriter Tim Coyle (who also stars as Tim, talk about your typecasting, boys!) for keeping the expenses under control for the purposes of their modest, low-budget chiller.
Sadly, that’s really the only narrative stretch that puts this Boogeyman on fresh ground. Yes, it unfurls pretty much like your standard ‘found footage’ project when allowed; but it also breaks just a bit from the structure by turning the crew’s remaining and last appearances in the form of a documentary assembled after-the-fact by some other peoples or persons. In small ways, that, too, does give Boogeyman a bit of a facelift by comparison to so much of what’s come before; but is that enough to lure an audience beyond the shrinking cadre of fans who still like the ‘found footage format’? Honestly, that question is probably above my humble pay grade, but I’m inclined to think probably not.
Struggling documentarian Calvin has received word from Jim (played by Jim Spence) that there’s something amiss on his property somewhere I believe in the woods outside of Seattle, Washington. Hoping that this could be his chance for filmmaking stardom, he gathers together a somewhat motley band Tim, Eric (Erik Skybak), and Naomi (Naomi Mechem-Miller) to head out into the wilds in hopes of capturing something in camera. What first seems like an incident of slim pickings slowly evolves as the four begin seeing things – shadows and distant figures, mostly – which suggest they’re being watched. But before these fright-filled three days end, each will have been coopted by the spirit of some elusive Boogeyman whose ultimate motivations remains sorely unexplored.
Is it too much to ask for all of the silver screen specters to, at least, have a purpose?
Jump scares aside – and the feature does offer a few good ones – there isn’t enough substance to the Boogeyman ‘legend’ here to get all that excited about. Hell, even the fact that he, she, or it aren’t even afforded a more definitive moniker – i.e. the Seattle Spook, the Backwoods Soul Bandit, Jim the Ghost, etc. – hints at a triteness that the flick rarely rises above; and, as I’ve tried to be clear, audiences do show up minimally expecting the taunted and teased by things they have seen before. As good as the cast is in confronting their growing unease, far too much of this Boogeyman has been done to death (snicker snicker), so perhaps a rewrite or two could’ve added a little more spice to the meal before it was served.
Now, there was a moment wherein I honestly thought Coyle and McCarthy were going to show us something different; and I want to draw some attention to it briefly.
The night after the crew interviewed the ubiquitous Jim – initially presented as little more than a witness/landowner, a character who served to ‘set the stage’ – the four encounter him sitting in the same chair on the same road essentially at the stroke of midnight. The mystery man is speaking to someone; and – to my unlearned ear – it sounded like Jim was saying the same lines he answered his interview questions with. He even predictably rose at one point and marched off in the same practiced cadence with which he left them curiously the first time; and I found myself wondering, “Have these folks found themselves in some kind of time loop?”
Furthermore, the flick does establish that something regarding the passage of time is entirely amiss: at one point, they’re forensically reviewing the audio of barks and howls they recorded the evening before when they happen across a mildly garbled voice saying, “Guys, I can’t see you.” Calvin states that it sounds like Naomi – which it both does and doesn’t to a degree – and then as events unfold we do eventually see when the fetching female host does say that line on the eve of her succumbing to whatever spirit has possessed her. We even see her standing in the night talking to the still seated Jim on the side of the road; and – once again – I found myself thinking that these characters were, one by one, by trapped in some temporary shenanigans. Isn’t she standing there interviewing the man again? Or am I mistaken?
And even furthermore: late in the picture after a few of their faces have gone missing, the forest peculiarly becomes decorated with posters bearing their faces, asking anyone who encounters these possible victims to come forward with clues to their disappearance. Some might quickly dismiss this as a kinda/sorta visual bit merely ‘pulling the legs’ of those still onscreen and watching the story of their friend’s demise take place; but is that all that’s going on? Why would a ghost – the central Boogeyman – have access to, say, a home PC and printer – along with a good Photoshop software – and use such resources in the wild to mindfuck the survivors? Isn’t it increasingly plausible that said phantom possess the ability to move forward and backward in time? To step into tomorrow, gather some posters, and bring them into the recent past to terrorize his casualties?
2022’s Brightwood from writer/director Dane Elcar is one of those unappreciated independent gems that explores the idea of time loops in a slightly similar fashion.
In that film, our two leads – Jen and Dan – are enduring a rift in their relationship: hoping to maybe find some solace by hiking together in the woods, they are eventually confronted by future versions of themselves, each growing more despondent, reckless, and violent all the time. Their characters grew over the course of this curious story to the point wherein we – the audience – watched as they became these volatile scavengers of tomorrow … and it’s this kind of trickery that I think Boogeyman could’ve tapped into that might afforded everyone something to do here beyond simple spirit possession. Soul ownership works, but because it’s been overused – especially in found footage – there’s just nothing all that interesting about it here.
Rather than criticize Boogeyman for things it didn’t do (but maybe hinted at slightly), I’m left with marking this one down as an exercise in roads too often already traveled. Again: it’s fine if that’s all you’re looking for … but the promise for something much greater was still there … and I do so much more appreciated walking down the roads others have ignored.
Lastly, there is a great line that sparks of some promise for the budding filmmakers, and I’d be remiss if I failed to give it the props it deserves. The police officer interviewed onscreen about the kids passing delivers a great but world-weary cynical line about the events. He states that, categorically, he doesn’t believe in boogeymen, and yet he strongly asserts that there is evidence of their existence. That, my friends, is good writing and great sentiments, the kind of focus that does make this Boogeyman worth seeing … if you’re a fan of found footage.
Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) was produced by 7th Street Productions. A quick search of Google.com suggests that the film is available for streaming on such platforms as Tubi, the Roku Channel, Fawesome, and Cranked Up TV. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that – like any other ‘found footage format’ film Boogeyman does employ the usual shaky-cam approach, so consider yourself warned. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, as I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
Recommended … but this one is mostly for those of us who still find something worthy about ‘found footage.’
Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) uses its workable premise – that of the ill-fated movie crew hoping to find the spectral scoop of their short lives – about as well as any other independent picture has. Much of the impact is accomplished via jump scares and the like, and its players move rather effortlessly through their respective paces, going from regular to irregular emotionally as the situations warrant. McCarthy and Mechem-Miller make the best of their screen time – he’s overly pensive to the point of explosiveness and she’s fetching and understandably anxious without trying too hard – so points earned for work well delivered. Ultimately, I prefer Horror that makes me think, and this one did, even if only in small ways.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Breaking Glass Pictures provided me with complimentary streaming access to Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed