A bit meh for me, but mostly because I'm not sure what the intended subject is in any of the shots. Taking the last two shots, there's a potentially interesting triangle/pyramid formed by the field on the hill, but it's not the focus of the composition and it's rather lost amongst the sky and foreground. The eye is drawn to the apex of that shape, but there's nothing else to take the eye around the image. There are also some potentially interesting movements in some of the hedge-lines and woods.
I always recommend people to track down a copy of
The Making of Landscape Photographs by Charlie Waite. It's out of print and can usually be picked up for a £1 or so as a used copy on Amazon. Dating back to the pre-digital days, it's a very good introduction to some of the things that can make a landscape photo work. I'm also working my way through the blog
The']http://www.ipoxstudios.com/canon-of-design/]The Canon of Design - or The Rule of Thirds Killed Design and Left It For Dead[/url] which is proving to be a very useful and thought-provoking discussion of composition and why the rule of thirds creates such uninteresting results when wielded like the only hammer in the toolbox.
As Eddy has said, there are some good Autumn tones but certainly in the last image there's too much contrast making large areas of deep black and the images themselves just don't look comfortable (too sharp too the point of jaggy-induced softness) - possibly over-sharpened or just over-processed. Or it's jpg compression artefacts, there's obvious colour banding in the sky.
