Cinequest Film Festival 2025 – Writer/director Harry Aspinwall’s feature debut, The House Was Not Hungry Then, is not a typical haunted house movie. In fact, that’s an understatement. There is indeed a presence, but viewers never see it or learn much about it. Instead, Aspinwall’s film and its dethatched objectivity is an experiment about what exactly a haunted house movie could be.

Set in an abandoned house with delipidated rooms, Aspinwall’s movie largely features locked down wide shots of rooms and hallways. This is true from the first frame to the last act. The film’s objectivity remains consistent. Unlike, say, The Amityville Horror, we don’t follow a family as they move into a spook house and then confront paranormal forces. We’re not treated to reaction shots or anything else that would tell us how to feel. Instead, we see everything namely from the house’s POV. This creates a coldness, even as people who wander into the house suddenly disappear, victims to the presence.

After the house consumes a few people in the opening minutes, we’re then introduced to Bobby Rainsbury‘s character who breaks into the house, while searching for her estranged father. Rainsbury’s character, who’s simply listed as the girl, furthering the detachment, is an architecture student. As the film plods along, we do learn more about her, including her strained and sad relationship with her father. This plays out largely through her phone calls and voicemails. Because of Aspinwall’s experimentation and the shots he maintains, Rainsbury’s character never quite grows on viewers, and likely, that’s intentional. She also spends a lot of the runtime evading a real estate agent, played by Clive Russell. He lures people to the house, feeding them to the entity.

Both Rainsbury and Russell offer memorable performances, especially when they speak directly to the camera. There are one or two monologues that are definitely standouts. Both of them deserve credit for their performances. This is such a minimal film, and the two rarely interact with other actors. So, their monologues carry a heck of a lot of weight, and Rainsbury and Russell fortunately rise to the challenge.

It’s possible this film will draw comparisons to Steven Soderbergh’s Presence from earlier this year. That film is another experimental haunted house story but told from the POV of the ghost(s). That said, Presence still largely focuses on a family. We get to know their characters, including their profound grief. It doesn’t have the type of detachment that Aspinwall’s feature contains, and that type of coldness, coupled with the slower pacing, may turn some viewers off. Still, you have to give Aspinwall credit for trying something different.

The House Was Not Hungry Then is not The Amityville Horror or Poltergeist. There are no toilets that spew black goo or creepy TVs here. This is an inventive and highly experimental feature that places us in the POV of the house and its eerie presence. The objectivity and dispassionate spaces make us observers more than anything else, as the house consumes one victim after another. This film will likely frustrate some horror fans, but at least Aspinwall dared to be bold.