I just watched
Super Atomic Commies and the editing's actually veeery choppy. Almost certainly not a professional job. That photo montage at the end especially reeks of bad home movies.
However, that is a technical thing, and one thing this film does do well, in my view, is that it takes its time getting to know the characters. It's not like the acting's out-of-this-world great, but just by pacing the story out patiently in the beginning, we are more engaged by the characters and get a better sense of who they are, and we're more likely to root for them. They also did make a good choice by going black and white. While they didn't achieve the softer look of those old-time political thrillers, it's still a tastier look than just plain ol' digital.
One thing I noticed: This movie had very, very few moving-camera shots. Given the constraints of these film contests, that may have been a smart choice, since moving camera usually result in lots of botched takes. When static-camera "coverage" shooting is well considered, you can usually milk more takes and get more done. And while I don't like the editing, the angles were well chosen and would have cut well in professional hands, and the mostly static camera actually fits the style of more "classical" cinema, as well as evoking the steady cameras of '70s "paranoid" thrillers (eg.
Three Days of the Condor,
All the President's Men). Finally, a static camera helps hide the fact that most of these submissions are shot in that frenetic, jittery handheld style, so a "classical" approach stands out.
www.derekmok.com