As a beginner/amateur indie filmmaker who is only in pre-production on my first short, and as a long time filmophile, with a lot of film production and history and trivia "book knowledge", but no actual experience or formal training, take this constructive criticism as you will.
Your film is not bad, but it's not good. It's more or less okay. Maybe better than that. At least I didn't feel like I wasted 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back like I do on most indie shorts. (every time I start to click on a link I feel dread anymore) And that's saying something. I kind of liked it.
There are those who say that, any time you use, or have to use, voice over on a film, you have failed. And there is quite a bit of truth to that. It's not an absolute rule. But it is a very good rule of thumb. Ideally, you should never use voice over.
Also ideally, in a film, you are supposed to show, not tell. That is, don't tell me what happened, or is happening, or is about to happen, or explain stuff I need to know for it all to make sense, especially through voice over. Show me, and also use dialogue when necessary. So you failed in that respect.
The story line is basically okay. (for what it was, taking into account the comments above) The dialogue is so-so. The acting is okay. The action is pretty good. The special effects were good. The sound quality was good, which is 50% +/- of a film. The music was okay, if not good. The filming in general was okay to good. (technical and technique) The image quality was good or very good. (it looks like you shot it on film, which would be my guess, per the look and also the credits)
The lighting was pretty poor, imo. You could say that the darkness was what you were trying to achieve, and it was a style, and it created the atmosphere you wanted. But you can light scenes and still have that effect. You did not achieve that here. It looked like you didn't light it correctly. (sometimes looking not lighted at all) Better lighting, good lighting, would have made a big difference in the final equation. (but not enough)
But, regardless, the film still fails because of the voice over flashback sequences. Again, that is a choice, and a style, but not one I personally like, and if it is not done very well, and "correctly" (sparingly?), you've got big problems. And that's what I see here.
Maybe I missed it, but if I knew it was his daughter talking before the end of the film, that might have made it better. Or even some voice over, but very little. And more storytelling. From beginning to end.
So I would doubt that you could re-cut it and edit it to make it (much) better than what you've got. I'm guessing you would have to pretty much re-shoot the whole film. Or a bunch of missing scenes to fill it out in the beginning and lead us along through the story "properly". Which would make it a longer film. Which maybe you did not want to do or could not do because of costs, time, resources, etc. Or maybe that was the plan all along.
So it is a learning experience. Not too painful or expensive, I hope. At least you didn't completely fail, which is something I dread. Putting all of that time and energy and money and everything else into a film and then coming up with something that you don't (or shouldn't) want to show to anyone. That would suck majorly.
Them's my two cents. Keep up the good work. If you can do this, you can, more likely than not, make really good films. That would be my guess. And I would bet your next one will be better. Probably much better.
