A processed photo (or, for that matter, many other forms of art) is a success if the photographer feels that it achieved what he/she wanted, and that his intent is successfully conveyed to many in the intended audience.
In the case of this image, the OP may have wanted to convey drama, and he tried to do this by employing brooding tones and funky colors. On the other hand, I can easily imagine other photographers in exactly the same place and time may simply have wanted a traditional "nice memory" type of snapshot, maybe more along the lines of the brighter, less brooding version that I attached to this message. However, if either one of these two photographers produced the image desired by the other one, neither would be happy.
So, the bottom line is that only you, the OP can say if it's a success. Every other opinion, including mine, usually is nothing more than the parochial point of view of that person.
However, what I will say is that software to tweak shots in the way done here is becoming widely available at low cost, as well as getting easier to use, so thinking that a relatively simple manipulation like this is "fine art" is probably not a good idea. Anything that can be done with one or two button presses is almost never going to become fine art. OTOH, the criteria for the success of commercial art is very different, and very simple, SALES! IMHO, the image under discussion could easily be commercially successful.
Just my $0.02,
Tom