It's pretty good. You seem to be taking your job seriously, congratulations, that's top 1% in today's world. I respect this work, so I'll give you some feedback, and it's not intended as negative or nitpicking, it's just that you got so many things right that it's a lot quicker for me to focus only on the few negatives.
1. It's longer than it needs to be to communicate any of the things it's getting across. I feel like I'm seeing shot ego here, something I struggle with all the time. You got a great shot, and you worked hard to get it, and when it came to the edit, you couldn't bear to cut that shot, even if it failed to add anything to the message, or had a negative effect on the pacing. No judgement, I do it all the time, and the only way to really avoid it is to hire an outside editor with no emotional stake in the footage, or just retrain your brain against natural bias, which is tricky. I once climbed a mountain to get a shot of a power plant. In the edit, the shot was boring and pointless, but I left it in for 20 seconds anyway, because I remembered how hard it was climbing up that mountain with 40 lb of equipment. Happens to everyone. I may be wrong, it's just an opinion, but I saw shots that were cut too quick, which is a telltale sign of trying to fit too many shots into timeframe x.
2. Color work is generally good, but the skin tones seem just slightly off. It's nothing major, but the guy's skin looked unnatural to me, just by a percent or so though. A nitpick. Nearer to the end of the video, you use a different colorist look, and that's a bit visually confusing. Each look you use is valid, and fairly well designed, but it's weird to use multiple looks in one piece, especially a short one, and one where there is no clear division between segments shot with one look and those shot with another. It's nothing to worry about, probably only pros will notice, but technically, you aren't supposed to be switching LUT's or whatever you're doing mid video.
3. Editing is uneven. Take this shot 22 seconds in, of the clock next to the bed. That shot is 8 seconds long, and it only needed to be 3 seconds. The shots after it are timed almost perfectly. What is the logic driving the length of that shot? Are we waiting for people to read the clock? I expect you were thinking that showing him get out of the bed was important to the story, and so you couldn't clip the shot until we saw him put his feet on the floor. Ok, for one, the audience would have connected the dots if he just slapped the alarm off, and the next shot is the car driving. Secondarily, you have the option to just hard cut from the alarm slap to a brief shot of shoes being tied, or feet landing on the floor. This also could have been an opportunity for fast character development. Instead of waiting 6 seconds to see him put his feet on the floor, we could have spent 1 second watching him rapidly cinching his laces, fast and firm, a focused, driven athlete that hits the ground running. That delivers more message in less time.
4. The couple of SFX transitions were a great idea, that probably could have been executed a bit better. They were partially effective, but the use of a few tricks could have elevated them.
Anyway, it's pretty good overall, this is not a negative review by any means, I just wanted to be detailed enough to be helpful.
).
