Evidence of the Boogeyman (2025) Review – Another Padded Found Footage Horror
Welcome to Knockout Horror. Today we are taking a look at an ultra low-budget found footage horror that you can find completely free on Tubi – Evidence of the Boogeyman (2025).
Evidence of the Boogeyman: Quick Verdict
The Verdict: A strictly “by-the-numbers” found footage effort that struggles to justify its existence over a punishing 94-minute runtime. While the creature design is a nostalgic throwback to 80s horror and Naomi Mechem-Miller provides a spark of genuine charisma, the film is weighed down by repetitive “nontent”, predictable jump scares, and a questionable reliance on gratuitous nudity that feels more leery than artistic. It’s functional indie horror, but it offers nothing you haven’t seen done better elsewhere.
Details: Director: Calvin Morie McCarthy | Cast: Naomi Mechem-Miller, Calvin Morie McCarthy | Runtime: 1 hour 34 minutes | Release Date: December 2025
Best for: Die-hard found footage completionists and viewers who don’t mind a lot of “walking in the woods” filler in exchange for a cool-looking monster.
Worth noting: The film is part of a loose “Boogeyman” cinematic universe involving previous titles like Beware the Boogeyman and Revenge of the Boogeyman.
Did You Know: Despite being the titular threat, the Boogeyman has surprisingly little screen time, making the film feel more like a slow-burn Blair Witch clone than a creature feature.
Where to Watch: Tubi (Free with Ads)
Rating: 2.0/5 Stars
(Extremely padded runtime, derivative plot, questionable use of nudity, cool creature design)
Table of Contents
Prepare For More Of The Same
I’m catching up on a bit of a review backlog at the moment. If you look through the archives here, you’ll know that I love shining a spotlight on indie horror. Evidence of the Boogeyman is one of those movies that I threw on when I had a couple of hours to spare and fancied just that. Tubi comes in pretty clutch for this type of occasion. It’s always a bit of a gamble, though. Some movies are great, others not so much.
“If found footage had a default plot option, this would be it.”
Evidence of the Boogeyman falls somewhere in the middle – it’s not egregiously awful but it has a lot of issues. Much like The Hem (2025) which we checked out earlier this week, it’s about as vanilla a found footage concept as you can possibly get. A small group of paranormal investigators head to a remote farm house to film a documentary about a haunting.
There’s a mockumentary style wrap-around segment, a few scenes featuring interviews with residents of the area, and others consisting of the hosts recording the show itself. Most of the movie is presented in a traditional found footage style representing the videos recovered after the ‘incident’ and presented as they were found.
If found footage had a default plot option, this would be it. If found footage had a default cast of characters, it would be these guys. The enthusiastic presenter, the obnoxious director, the confused and easily frightened camera operators… It’s all present and accounted for in Evidence of the Boogeyman. This is a film that’s completely unafraid of indulging in lazy horror tropes.
With that being said, let me be clear for a second; that’s not a problem if it’s well executed. It only becomes an issue when it results in a fairly dull plot, a lack of scares, and protracted scenes of people aimlessly wandering around the woods purely to pad the runtime. You can probably see where I am going with this.
A low-budget horror universe?
Evidence of the Boogeyman is one of those found footage horror movies that comes in with a well worn checklist and ticks off every item. It doesn’t innovate, it doesn’t try anything new, and it doesn’t excel in any one area. Let’s talk about the story first. It’s you same old same old; our investigators are making a documentary about a boogeyman said to haunt a remote house.
From my research, this is a continuation of a Boogeyman related cinematic universe. We have the anthology horror Beware the Boogeyman, of which our director here Calvin Morie McCarthy helmed a segment, and Revenge of the Boogeyman which McCarthy wrote for.
The titular Boogeyman is obviously the star of the show when it comes to the scares but he’s more than a little shy. His screen time is almost at “blink and you’ll miss it” levels. I’m not sure if they had to get the costume back before 4pm or something but he’s a fleeting presence. This is far more The Blair Witch Project than [REC] when it comes to how the movie plays out.
It’s lots of walking around the house filming, momentary glimpses of ‘something’, followed by more walking around the house filming. It’s not horribly presented, or anything. McCarthy knows his way around a camera and shakiness is never a huge issue. The night vision stuff is fairly clear, as well – it’s just ordinary.
Things head outside when one of our characters decides to take a naked sabbatical in the woods but it’s really just more of the same. Different location, same walking aimlessly and shouting a lot.
It’s repetitive and a bit dull
The segments featuring Naomi (Naomi Mechem-Miller) presenting documentary snippets offer some reprieve from the rote. Naomi is a charming presence but these moments, like the film’s antagonist, are mercilessly fleeting.
“The interesting bits could have fit into a well paced short. Instead, they are stretched to the point where they become forgettable.”
McCarthy can’t wait to get everyone back to wandering around aimlessly and asking each other what the hell that noise was. What makes it worse is that, for the most part, this is a group of grown ass men. I’m not sure they are the most obvious cast for us to buy into when it comes to vulnerable characters. Acting isn’t bad but it certainly isn’t strong enough to elevate that, either.
I enjoyed some of the segments where the crew investigate footage to identify anomalies. Again, they pass quickly and it’s back to more wandering around in the dark with night vision cameras but at least they offered some intrigue. This is another classic case of over-extension. The interesting bits could have fit into a well paced short. Instead, they are stretched to the point where they become forgettable and meaningless.
The runtime here is a punishing 94 minutes, too; that’s ludicrous for any found footage, let alone one so ruthlessly padded with repetitive nontent. The frights come in ‘jump scare flavour’. This is less a brooding nightmare and more someone dropping something heavy behind you when you are in a state of half sleep.
I’m not sure if the endless meandering around the house was purely done to lull you into a stupor so the scares hit harder. They don’t really hit at all, though. They are very projected and you see them coming. The boogeyman himself looks pretty cool, though. The design is suitably gnarly and a real throwback to 80s horror. Speaking of which…
I have to talk about it…
Alright, so this is the bit where I need to talk about the nudity, because it’s impossible not to.
Before anyone rolls their eyes, I’m not anti-nudity in horror. I actually think it’s pretty essential in a lot of cases. Hereditary would lose a huge amount of its final punch if everyone stayed neatly covered up, and Carrie’s shower scene just doesn’t work without that vulnerability baked in. Nudity can absolutely be, and often should be, part of the language of horror. That said, the nudity in Evidence of the Boogeyman just feels… off.
“It stops feeling like a deliberate artistic choice and starts feeling like a director using the one obvious lever he has left to pull.”
In parts, it doesn’t feel like it’s there because the story needs it. It feels like it’s there because the film is thin and someone panicked. When you’ve got such a small cast, it becomes very noticeable that the only non-male member is also the one who’s being manipulated into taking their clothes off by a lecherous director (Yes, it’s part of the story, I get it!).
It starts slipping into that old thigh-staring mode that horror used to lean on when it didn’t have much else going on. And that’s frustrating, because Naomi Mechem-Miller is genuinely great. They’re the most naturally charismatic person in the film, the easiest to root for, and when the movie does later lean into full nudity, it could have been unsettling in a really effective way because you really care about Naomi.
There’s a version of this film where those moments feel kind of nightmarish. Instead, too often it just feels a bit leery. Naomi spends a lot of the film being shouted at, pushed around, talked over, and ogled, and the camera never really turns that same scrutiny on anyone else. It stops feeling like a deliberate artistic choice and starts feeling like a director using the one obvious lever he has left to pull.
To be clear, this isn’t a knock on Naomi at all. If anything, they deserve a better film and a more thoughtful eye behind the camera. The issue isn’t nudity, it’s the intention behind it. It feels dated, awkward, and weirdly out of step with the kind of horror the film seems to be aiming for. Sorry, but I have to call it how I see it.
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
The Good
- Naomi Mechem-Miller: Easily the highlight of the cast. Naomi is naturally charismatic and brings a grounded energy that the rest of the film lacks.
- Creature Design: The Boogeyman itself is a win. It’s a gnarly, physical design that feels like a loving tribute to 80s creature features.
- Investigation Bits: The small segments where the crew analyses footage for anomalies are genuinely interesting and provide a brief respite from the wandering.
The Bad
- Punishing Runtime: At 94 minutes, the film is way too long. It stretches a concept that would have been a tight 15-minute short into a bloated feature.
- The “Nontent” Loop: Far too much of the movie consists of repetitive footage of men wandering through the woods or dark hallways asking “what was that?”
- Predictable Scares: Most of the frights are basic jump scares that you can see coming from a mile away, lacking any real atmospheric dread.
The Ugly: The “Naked Sabbatical”. The plot justification for the film’s sudden turn into full nudity feels flimsy and forced, making an otherwise talented actor’s vulnerability feel like a cheap gimmick to pad the runtime.
Should You Watch Evidence of the Boogeyman?
Only if you’ve already exhausted the rest of Tubi’s found footage library. It’s a textbook example of a “background movie” – something to have on while you’re scrolling on your phone. While the monster looks great and Naomi Mechem-Miller is a highlight, the endless padding and derivative script make it a tough sell for anyone looking for actual scares.
You might also like:
- Sweeney Todd (2007) Review – A Gory And Grandiose Gothic Musical
- The Long Walk (2025) ending explained: does Pete survive, the Alternate Ending, & would the walk be possible?
- The Interior (2015) Review – A Divisive Genre-Bender with a Heart-Stopping Scare
- Hostel (2005) review – Shallow, nasty, and surprisingly effective
- Keeper (2025) review: Osgood Perkins at his most divisive
Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight
Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.
A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.
Support the Site Knockout Horror is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Basically, if you click a link to rent or buy a movie, we may earn a tiny commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This helps keep the lights on and the nightmares coming. Don't worry, we will never recommend a movie purely to generate clicks. If it's bad, we will tell you.
Disclaimer: Images, posters, and video stills used in this review are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are included here for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and review under fair use. Knockout Horror makes no claim of ownership and encourages readers to support the official release of all films discussed.
