Never been a fan of using titles in the middle of a film to cut off sections - though that may just be me. Perhaps instead having a fade to black would signify a time jump, as opposed to just out right saying what day it is. Numbering the days tends to not work out so well unless it's working as some sort of countdown, like "he only has 200 days to live!" or "he has to get her to love him before the ____ of ____!".
The computer-screen shots weren't half bad, the only problem being a slight squeaking noise I can hear that seems to put me off. The music could have stayed for those shots, rather than getting rid of it. Saying that, having the shots change from 3D to 2D can be somewhat off-putting. Perhaps instead having shots of the computer screen from over the shoulder of the person at the computer would work better?
I would nitpick further, but honestly this was a good short film! There were some very strong points, in particular the car scenes as well as the "date" scenes. The main problems seemed to be with the positioning of shots, like when he was with his mate(s?) on the sofa at several points - having people directly in the center of a shot tends to give a "home-made" feel to it, as especially with the angle being so flat against the direction they're facing. Looking towards the camera has the same affect too, even if they're not looking directly at the lens.
Some other shots like that are the single-subject scenes where you've placed the subject smack-bang in the middle of the screen, and it felt a lot more amateur.
The sound could have been a lot better - with dramatic pieces, it tends to put you off. Perhaps investing in an external microphone would help? Those time-lapse shots (I think that's the appropriate name - the ones where time is fast-forwarded) also seemed to be a tad off, or just unneeded, especially with the narration. For example, the shot where he's waiting for her call in the library and getting frustrated could simply have shown him at normal speed being anxious, whilst the narration explained what was happening.
But basically, it was a great short film! There wasn't really THAT MUCH of a problem with the acting, other than perhaps the scene where he's upset and all he does is bang the bed slightly and throw a remote (?) on the floor. Also, cutting back to the past to have the guy reveal he stole her from his friend was a bit... off-tone.
Here are some shot comparisons, by the way, to help you understand what I mean when I'm calling some shots amateur and others amazing:
Alarm Clock Shot - Good
Bathroom Mirro Shot - Poor
Entire Car Scene - Good
Library Studying - Good
Sofa Friends! - Poor
Walking Down The Corridor - Poor
Talking In The Corridor - Poor/Good
On The Computer - Poor
The Cute As Hell Ice Cream Scene - Good
Snooker Shot 1 - Good
Snooker Shot 2 - Poor
Snooker Shot 3 - Poor
Snooker Shot 4 - Good
Dialogue Shot - Poor
Cool Looking Trees 1 - Good
Cool Looking Trees 2 - Good
Girls... Face - Good
Clock - Good
Temper Tantrum - Poor
I'd say this is actually a good sign though! The fact that you didn't consciously make the decision to make every shot to the same quality makes me think you have some level of natural talent for it, which is great! Look forward to seeing more work from you
(I just read through that post btw, and I'm sorry if I sound condescending - I'm only a student myself, I just tend to nitpick everything - but just know that I do it not out of hate, but out of love
aha!)
Edit:
I can't seem to find a proper clip of it, but
Shaun of the Dead has a set of perfectly shot scenes where the main characters spend time on the sofa with each other. They're worth a look for reference!
Oh, and as much as I go on about centering subjects or keeping them along the four main points, it's not really that bad if you just seperate the background properly. Centering the image just helps towards making it flat, but if there's another depth already it doesn't matter AS MUCH, but still does. That's in my opinion, anyway, and others may disagree.
