There were issues that kept me from finding this (or the film it advertises, of which I've now watched part one) enjoyable. The cinematography is uninspired- too many head-on camera angles, most of the shots would benefit from being lowed closer to the figure's eye level (this would help lessen the amount of empty head-space in wide shots as well), and the lighting is plain.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not pulling out the whole bag of tricks when you make a film, but to shoot something where the entirety of the short takes place without any sort of action to break up the monotony, I don't think it's unreasonable to say some effort should be put into making it worth actually watching the film. Harsh as it may sound, as it stands now I could listen to the whole thing and come away from it with the same impression I had after watching it. I know you've written about reusing animation, and I have to argue against that- if you can reuse the shot multiple times, it probably isn't dynamic enough to hold the viewer's attention more than once.

It's clear that our tastes differ substantially with regards to plot and humor, so there's not a whole lot of point in my reviewing that- I don't demand that everyone make films that I am interested in watching. I will say that your jokes generally feel like standard sitcom material (grumpy outspoken husband, hardworking sensible mother) and I think your films would be more entertaining to me personally if you were able to break that boundary and come up with material that felt less derivative. Again, this is a matter of taste and it's understandable to me that you would make films this way, even if I don't enjoy them.

That said, there are definitely areas in your work that could stand improvement, and I hope you'll take that into consideration as you get to work on your next project.

I also question the purpose of releasing a trailer for a film you plan to release the next day, but what do I know about making breakfast cereal?