In both cases, you've made good use of "classic" landscape composition: the foreground is anchored with a leading line guiding viewers to the background. It's a bit dramatic and seems a bit forced (perhaps too wide of a lens was used), but it works.
oliver02 - Remember, the brightest object tends to draw the eye, so in this case, the eye keeps getting drawn back to the bright foreground rock. Perhaps that's what you intended, but it is distracting. I also find the noise in the bottom left distracting.
oliver03 - The pebbled foreground is not as distracting as the white rock, except it seems oddly blurred - lens softness combined with the moving water of a long exposure. There are also a number of white pixels/noise as in oliver02.
Lastly, the use of a graduated filter seems forced in that it is very obvious. While on a good day, the colour might be natural sky colour (but not that day given the hues in the rest of the photo), when the same colour bleeds over the trees, the filter becomes too obvious and is, therefore, distracting.
You seem to like colour imbalance! It can work, perhaps when they are both unrealistic (as I found with "new lightroom/photoshop" in "oh the frustration"), but more frequently it does not. When the foreground is realistic like in the "oliver" shots (looks like the dull, muted tones of an overcast sky) and the background sky and trees are unrealistic (especially with the trees showing the obvious effects of the coloured grad filter), it doesn't work for me.
Due to the imbalance of colours, you may want to try B&W with these: the compositions and shapes are strong and the tones & contrast can be improved.
Good luck - keep shooting & sharing - and, for a while, try ditching the colour grad filter.
