The House Was Not Hungry Then

Which if that is something you won't like, you probably shouldn't watch.

It's slow, it is static, there is long periods of nothing and yet the film is still oddly beautiful and touching. And I'll be frank, if this movie had caught me on a not great day, I would have also shut it off like a couple other reviewers had. But I am so glad I didn't.

I will say it's less horror and more tense drama. There are no jump scares and no boogieman with a knife.

Look, if you don't like experimental then don't watch this. But if you do, I think you'll be as pleasantly surprised as my husband and I were.

I don't want to give anything away, so I'll stop my review there.

At first the quick disappearance is intriguing but after an hour of nothing to go another 30 minutes of tedious scene after scene I swear you'll be yelling in your mind when the hell is this going to end. It's just super slow and pointless. The acting wals hard to judge because I think they were decent actors but to make that movie work just wasn't a possibility due to the plot and direction given to the actors. I think thats why I land on three because the cinematography and thw placements of the camera angles were not bad actually I think it helped the film tremendously but overall that story told in that way was weak.

I really tried to give The House Was Not Hungry Then a fair shot, but it completely failed to hold my attention. The entire movie is shot from a fixed-angle perspective, almost like a GoPro was mounted to the wall and left to run-an interesting concept on paper, but painfully dull in execution. What could have been atmospheric or tense just felt stagnant and lifeless. The pacing dragged, the tension never built, and I found myself checking the time more than following the plot. Unless you're a die-hard fan of experimental formats with minimal movement and dialogue, this one's probably not worth your time.

Well, empty rooms and conversations you can't hear. I lasted 12 minutes into this ( I don't know what to call it) I spent the 1st 5 minutes checking the volume on my tv. In the 12 minutes I watched, I only heard 1 sentence as a guy leaned into the house and asked if anyone had any questions. I do. Why is here a cast listed? They must come in later as outside of the 1 guy who was at the other end of the house leaning in the doorway, I only saw shadows or people walking past windows having conversations I couldn't hear.

Maybe this is a DOI film- Do it yourself. I the viewer was supposed to make up my own film in my mind using empty rooms as backdrops... Someone has to make it illegal for junior colleges to have film making classes. I'm willing to be that this director/writer went to Bakersfield Community College or something similar. I understand wanting to make something different but crap has been "done" to death. We don't need more of it.

This isn't just a "Do not recommend" for me. It's a don't even consider it. I'd call it the worst 12 minutes of film I've ever seen.

I randomly stabled upon this film in my recommendations and Tittle drew me in "The House Was Not Hungry Then" as I think most people who decided to watch, but this film is lacking to say the least. It feels like this was a Short Film probably 10-15min. Max that was constructed into a full feature, because this film dragged on, I was at the 30min. Mark, and wondering to myself this is abit torturous. I know its a artistic choice to shoot wide in room and hallways and commit to it throughout, but when the film lacks story and depth and its so long, you start to wonder were these choices made out of laziness.