If you want brutal, well I think you should try from scratch. The sky is blown out - I know it was overcast, but that usually means no good for landscapes. It would probably be excellent portrait lighting if the sky wasn't visible in the picture though.
For fall foliage - it doens't look like it has peaked - the colors are a bit dull still. Overall the image is very flat, and not much depth or dimension to it. It needs more contrast, and could use a good foreground and background subject. If the sky was blue with some interesting clouds, that would be fine for background, but still no foreground.
Good landscapes most often combine foreground, middleground and background elements to produce interest, lead your eye through the photo, etc. You have pretty much all middleground in this photo and as such it doesn't work so well IMO. Now this rule isn't always followed, and can be broken - but it's a good guide to start with.
Also, for good landscapes you generally want to photograph in the hour after sunrise and the hour before sunset. Again not a set in stone rule, but you have to be aware of how the light affects subjects when directly overhead at mid day. Usually it is not the greatest light to work with and will end up with little dimension and harsh shadows when you don't want them. But some subjects can be done at that time - it all depends.
As for the contrast deal - you should read up on the simplified zone system if you can. It's a bit early for you to foray into that I think, but if you look at this image, it doesn't really cover a lot of zones, which is why it looks flat and not as appealing.
Some other things which will help with landscape photography are a good set of graduated neutral density filters.
First and foremost, however - work on composition and exposure. I think that is where you need to improve right now, and other areas will follow.