The House on Mansfield Street

-2 Boring but short thankfully.

-1 Ending is no payoff. Story is silly and not original at all.

I knew from the start it wouldn't be a masterpiece. This movie looked like another copy of Paranormal Activity and that's exactly what it was, which I have to admit, is one of my guilty pleasures.

Contrary to all the bad reviews, I think it's actually not that bad. Acting is decent, so is directing. The only problem is the story, it starts well and there are a few good ideas along the way, but it lacks refinement and the ending is disappointing. The author should have spent more time on the script.

That being said, making that movie with only a few hundred pounds and basically no one is pretty impressive. It may look easy but it's not.

A terrible "film"... not worth the time. The fact the "ghost" is wearing a hoody is beyond a joke. Awkward acting and pointless plot. Do not bother!!

THE HOUSE ON MANSFIELD tells a simple story: Nick has just moved to the Nottingham/Sherwood area and soon after he begins to increasingly notice strange phenomena in his cottage. Might his neighbor Emma have something to do with this?

Fans of slow-burn found footage movies might actually like this. But essentially remaking PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (2007) failed to impress me. There was a bit of innovation with the extensive use of split screens, but because they were not used for any discernible purpose, it fell flat. Cinematic devices are only effective if they are used in the service of a well-chosen purpose.

To give an example, one effective use of the split screen could have been to increase the creep factor: say, he is investigating noises, and one split screen shows what he sees and the other shows his face. The next moment, the first split screen shows something that captures his and our attention in front of him, while the other split screen shows a threat slowly approaching him from behind. We see it, but he doesn't. This would be the found footage version of the trope of approaching danger missed by the unaware character.

This is a slow-paced movie, and especially in the first half, the pace is glacial. The second half picks up a little, but not much. The protagonist is so dismissive of the obvious paranormal events which he not only witnesses but actually records on his camera that it starts to become annoyingly unrealistic. Most people would freak out way before he does. He also seems strangely passive in the face of an increasingly menacing threat. As a character, he is drawn neither realistically nor well.

Another shortcoming to me was that the story did not even use any local legend; I would have thought that the area, famous for Robin Hood and medieval history, would have been a rich source, and these could have helped, for example, with building atmosphere and making sense out of why the events in the movie occur.

There is a small twist at the very end, but it leaves you pretty much just as baffled as before. Without a mythology, explanation, rhyme or reason, it is very hard to make a good or at least satisfying found footage horror movie.

The director evidently created a series of these "Haunted in Sherwood" movies, which I have not seen. By cross-referencing them to each other, he could build up a universe with its own mythology, and thereby avoid one substantial lack of this movie.

There are a few bad reviews on here and they have prompted me to do my first review on IMDb as they bug me a little.

In the 'film budget' on IMDb it says this was made for £300 (just over $400). That's nothing and for the cost of the film I think this is worth 7 stars for the film work, effects and story.

Nice U.K. 'found footage' film with a good and different story and well worth a watch if you are in to this style.

I would be interested to see what the writer/main actor could do with a bigger budget.