Sure, if you want me to, I can point out where I think the editing could be improved (Allthough the "editing problems" I referred to are connected to the directing and pacing issues).
And I know, the hardest thing is always the GET RID of footage you don't need. Especially after working such a long time on something, every shot you lose hurts, I know that.
But it's the main problem of this edit. it's too afraid to get rid of shots you simply don't need because they don't tell anything new.
Right, here my - completely personal - suggestions:
0:00:16 - There's quite a few frames before the camera actually goes into motion. If you lost some of these (ideally exactly one step of your actor) it'll be a bit sharper.
0:00:23 - Thats a hard one to describe. There's a bit of countermotion in those two shots, but you can get rid of those if you lose just 4 or 5 frames of the shot from behind, before you cut to the one showing him picking out the ipod.
0:01:14 - That frameblending seems utterly unnecessary and unmotivated. A straight cut would be much preferred. Cause filmwise, there's no real reason for a frameblending there. In fact, I'd lose that closeup shot entirely, it shows nothing new, nor is a very good shot (while the glidecam one is and the next one too, with cutting to a mediocre shot, you kinda destroy the nice glidecam feeling too)
I'd say definately lose that shot.
0:01:26 - I'd say at this point, you HAVE to give the viewer new information. We've seen him long enough, now, something new needs to happen. I'd argue, this is the part where it starts to feel "too long". Get rid of it all. The closeup shot isn't especially nice and the next one is awfully wobbly compared to your beautiful glidecam shot. Besides, it's again absolutely uninteresting.
I'd say lose both shots from 1:26 to 1:34 and just go there directly. (because otherwise you'll get a continuity problem, assuming you have no other footage)
0:01:49 - Again, get rid of the frameblending. Have a look at my filmlanguage tutorial in the forum, a blend does again not fit in.
Actually, the whole montage of him, again doing the same thing we've already seen, is pointless. I'd say lose it completely too. It delivers nothing new. Plus we've seen the snurgle now and we all wonder what's up with him. Leaving the audience like that will feel "weird" in an unpleasant way. You don't want that.
I'd say lose everything from 1:49 to 2:21. While it's alright material, it's not as good as other material you have and, as said, it just serves no purpuse for the storytelling. Everything that doesn't deliver new information is redundant.
The next sequence is great!
0:03:01 - You underestimate the viewer there. Frankly, your actor runs quite slow. And it feels like there could be some time saved there. One sees the camera simply for too long. I'd suggest to leave the cam sharp less long, then speed up the focus pull, then cut immedeately to the door opening (since it's a static shot, you should be able to fake all this thus making it faster)
0:03:06 - A continuity error. There's a least 1 metre he runs twice. He's already almost gotten to that dark furniture in the last shot, now I see him move at least one entire step again. Cut shorter.
0:03:11 - Again you underestimate how quick a viewer can gather visual information in my opinion. You should get lost of at least 20 frames in total in that sequence. First, get lost of a few frames of that closeup - he sees something, got it, next - then get lost of some frames of the camera at the beginning of the next shot as well as some frames of the ending of that shot. Try it out, believe me it'll work better. the human eye can pick up an information in less then 6/7 frames.
0:03:15 - Same, lose the frames of the hammer shot all up until the first pixel of his arm comes in. As it is now, it stops the feeling of motion the shot before conveys.
0:03:17 - Get rid of that shot entirely, it's very ugly
. We saw him running away with the hammer in the shot before. Cut straigt to him leaving the house.
The hammer-Slam sequence is a bit off my taste of camerawork and editing, but since all the footage looks like that, I don't think there's really something technically wrong with it.
That's it. I know I talk of "frames" a lot, but you'll find out, the sum up. Sometimes, a cut can really be brilliant or meh depending on just 3 frames more or less.
Right, that's where I see improvements that could be made. I hope you can take something out of it and try some of my suggestions out. Maybe you'll find they work, maybe not.
And don't let the impression that I wrote a lot about "bad" editing fool you, you have a very cool little short on your hands with some excellent stuff in it. That's exactly why smaller problems become so aparrent and I think you could improve the film by 100% if you sort out these problems. Which is the goal at the end: Having the best possible result.