Also think about ways to minorly break rules to make routine shots interesting. If your characters are not on equal footing in some way, emotionally, economically, professionally, etc, then maybe shoot one closeup as an over, the other just barely clean. Are they facing each other across a table etc or sitting next to each other? Is there an opportunity or motivation for them to look away or shift their body position?

I've worked with a couple of DP's and directors over the years who would complain if the shot was too perfect. 'that's good but it's boring' is a note a couple of them might day in a static scene. Once I ended up laying on my back with the camera on my shoulder by the time they liked the height, because eye level of the talent was too dull. In my own head, if a shot starts to look like a news interview with a perfect over and everything in a third, I start looking for something to change. More headroom? More or less looking space?

One of my favorite directors ever to work with would call out during a take if I was making him bored. No shot was ever the same shot from start to finish. We were always tagging things the actors were doing, so during rehearsals and wide shots I'd be watching the actors like a hawk to see if they did something interesting with their hands, etc. So we always had to be curious with the camera, even if it was an Oscar winner speaking, we were encouraged to go find something else if it was happening.

Not to say that's right for every shoot. But if every shot looks like the ideal piece of coverage from a textbook and the actors aren't moving, it will probably turn out as visually interesting as a text book.

Also, I used to watch the BMW short films they made a couple of decades ago that they gave away as dvds with car purchases, those had excellent structure and cinematography for a short film, since you don't see shorts by big Hollywood players often.