I watched with the sound off - I felt I wouldn't miss a thing and if anything, it might actually improve my experience if I didn't have to hear poor delivery.
I lasted 5:04. I might have given it another couple of minutes, but when I saw it was 20 min, I gave up. The #1 problem you have is one you may not be able to do much about, and which plagues all of us unknowns on small budgets - access to tolerable actors. These blokes here were the usual dreck, and that did the short no favors. Not your fault really.
The #2 problem was the story was just not engaging, such as I managed to glean. I saw the giant and my eyes glazed over. Sorry.
The #3 problem you have - and this may surprise you - lack of excitement in your work. There is no elegance or interest visually in either the camera work, the staging or lighting. Read that sentence carefully. It doesn't mean it was "student bad". It meant, it didn't rise above sea level.
Tarantino (paraphrased): "there's a sea of sh|t out there, they come at you like waves. Your job is to throw a grenade in there so that everybody sits up".
See what I mean? It's not enough to be "OK", or "competent". YOU MUST STAND OUT. How does this stand out HEADS AND SHOULDERS above stuff out there? It doesn't.
Watch this. It's 14 minutes as against your 20. It was made by a 24-year old guy, back in 1958:
Two Men and A Wardrobe
Here's what you should observe and compare to what you did:
1) Concept
2) Acting
3) Camera work
4) Editing
Now tell me, how do you think this work stacks up against yours?
And now go back to that Tarantino paraphrase I gave you above.
Put those two things together, and then THINK.
This may seem brutal to you, but it's a huge favor - it cuts to the chase. Your choice is to either step up to the challenge, or follow in the footsteps of hundreds of thousands of amateur filmmakers who never went anywhere. The choice is yours. Best of luck!