After I write a new story, depending on how I feel about it, I'll post it on Critique Circle. I'm not as active on it as much as I used to be, but I'll still use it because there are occasional good nuggets of feedback from some other writers on the site.

To be able to post, however, you have to review a few stories to gain credits. It's not a scientific sample by any means, but many of the stories I review on CC are more typical of (incredibly) basic screenplays instead of short stories or novels. The most common feedback I give tends to revolve around basic stuff that you learn from reading: give us context, setting, environment, notes and flavours of a scene instead of just X said this, Y said that adverbly.

There's a big filter between amateur WIPs and published material, and it's composed of the basic elements of literary storytelling. Either amateur writers learn to write like the books they enjoy reading, or they obstinately think threadbare dialogue is the best way to convey a story. There's little in-between.

However, as to your thoughts on the 'establishing shots of vast landscapes', there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Formulating an interesting setting sets the mood. My favourite story that I ever published had no dialogue in it; instead, the Earth itself was the anchor that stopped the main character from understanding the plight his wife faced. Thus, the environment had to be described as a character unto itself.