The Good:

- Setup: Very good set up. Quick, to the point, no over explanations, no obsession to give extremely transcendental motives to their characters(for a movie that overdoes that and fails miserably, see "The Time Machine" with Guy Pierce)

- Characters: Unlikable? Really? I don't think you need to identify with the characters to enjoy a movie, but that's just me. Anyway, what's good about these two is that, although a bit cliché, they're believable. Really, I don't think "courage", "selflessness" and "not caring about money" are personality traits I'd expect from people who go around prowling on abandoned military bases. And again, they're young people who don't really need motives to be doing crazy/fun stuff, or can you all account for why you do the things you do all the time?

-FX: Nice. Not mind blowing, not "ZOMFG is that real?!?!?!", but nice, and the design of the robot was pretty classy if you ask me(which you didn't, but that's why we love the internet)

- Setting: Nice, looks believable(albeit the unusual amount of empty cardboard boxes, but that did not fire up my bull-o-meter), and doesn't look cheap(though it probably was).

The Bad:

- Scene with the flying barrel and the bursting door: poorly executed. That is not to say it is shamefully bad, but it is clearly, clearly below the overall quality level of the movie.

-Pacing: It is odd. Like somebody said, the cut-scenes of Shay going through an assortment of rooms are confusing, not in a "what is he doing" way, but rather on a "why is he casually exploring a warehouse like he was looking for a lost bicycle" way. Also, the blending of action and comic relief could've been handled better(maybe way better)

-Acting: The interaction of the actors and the big giant robot detracts from the realism. They don't get as scared as you'd expect, nor seem to be panicking as a huge mecha threatens to trample them to death.

Of those 3, the pacing thing is the most severe to me, because it's entirely up to the director. The 3D thing, well, I guess I wouldn't have noticed it had it not been for the good quality of the rest of the film. And the acting thing, really, this short still gets a better performance of its actors than Lucas got out of Portman and McGregor.

The Ugly:

-It's Ok to be a little cliché. Actually, I thank a good dose of clichés if they help me digest 11 minutes of my life. But the ending, really, you could, metaphorically speaking, stand in the opening credits and get a good, solid glimpse at it. It doesn't really ruin the movie, cause its not one based on plot twists, but still, kinda let me down.

Overall, fun movie, A for effort, and the result I'd say a solid 7 in a 1 to 10 scale(with extra points for being independent and done with free software, of course). Like somebody said, I look forward for his/their next project.

I found the making-of more entertaining, and had better story and better acting ( that guys acting gave me the creeps ).

I agree that not all stories need to have disneys good guys, but if I can't identify with any of the characters or situations on screen then thats a cinema walkout.
Sense and Sensibility is a masterpiece, but I cant identify with any of the characters, nor the timeframe, nor the dresses they are wearing… Not going to sit out that movie.
Of course some people can identify them selfs with smoking losers and might find this a good film. But more likely they identify them selfs with the coolness of getting a movie made, or made with blender. Easy to confuse that with good storytelling.

Seems to me movie making is about telling stories with pictures, in this movie the "story" is litteraly told over the phone and the rest is just running ( I have no idea why it took 4 days to shoot that ). Short movie problem I guess. Then again, I've seen shorts that handle this problem excellent.
Did you see where that hanger stands, and nobody finds it weird you can use a cellphone there?

The special effects are in my opinion very good, and very well executed. ( I also liked the music ).
But they don't make up for the bad story, because good effects are something you don't see.
If an effect is done well then you don't know its an effect; leaving you with… the story.

So,… or make bad effects, or write a story we need to be told, otherwise it's just a showcase for your effect skills, not your writing/directing skills.

@TobiDN:
3. I really don't think that anyone has developed machinery with pinpoint accuracy yet,

This is a movie; anything can be made to believe. ( big barn being a hanger #5 in the middle of the dessert didn't seem to be a problem )
In "The Jackal" (1997) there is a gun made that can remotely shoot with pinpoint accuracy.
And in "The Terminator" a non professional actor is directed into a believable human cyborg, where the story is a bit more interesting than "we look for gold, run, hooray there it is." ( Okay, only a little bit. )

But Nathan Matsuda seems to be very passionate about making movies, and he got at least this one made, so lets see what his next project will be.

There's not much I would change except the barrel scene — the textures and physics compared to the way the leg kicked WAS kinda strange looking.

How were the credits done??

But, for as little time as was available to shoot it, good job.