The House on Mansfield Street

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.

Slow. The film equivalent of watching paint dry. "There's that noise again", Ya don't say. I appreciate what the filmmakers tried to to with basically no budget but the end result is predictable and bland. Pass this "house" up.

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 idea sounded very interesting and creative, so there was enough to make one want to see it. The cover looked quite eerie. So saw 'The House on Mansfield Street' with genuine interest and wanting to at least sort of like it even if it had many problems.

Seeing it, well 'The House on Mansfield Street' certainly did have many problems and it is pretty much exactly the same feelings had when watching a few other films recently. The bad news was that there was not an awful lot good, let alone great, about it, so it was difficult for me to sort of like it, the little that's good being far overshadowed by the bad. Having prepared myself to do that, that was disappointing. Not a terrible film or without redeeming qualities, and there is far worse out there of the genre and overall. Liked the concept for 'The House on Mansfield Street', despite it being found footage which always makes me feel nervous, the execution was just wanting.

'The House on Mansfield Street' at least didn't insult my intelligence. It at least didn't make me angry watching it. Despite giving it a relatively low score and negative review, it even didn't make me regret watching it altogether.

It started off quite promisingly in an unsettling sort of way.

Setting was quite spooky at times as was the lighting.

Unfortunately, 'The House on Mansfield Street' did lack tension and suspense and the infrequent creepiness was never that eerie and rather obvious. The script is stilted and very repetitive while the direction tends to be static and pedestrian. Even for the very minimal budget, 'The House on Mansfield Street' looked as though it was made in a rush and it shows in its cheap look. The acting reeks of inexperience.

Was let down by the story. Conceptually interesting and wasn't too bad starting, at least too there actually was one, but the dull pace, due to some very uneventful stretches in particularly the middle, and the muddled way it was structured, meaning things didn't make sense, cheapened things. The characters are flimsily developed and bland even though the actors do their best. It can feel vague and while nothing is intelligence insulting there is both ridiculousness and trying to take it too seriously.

Overall, well intentioned but weak. 3/10 Bethany Cox

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.