Okay, I've read what everyone has to say and am writing some more now. Again, not in the mood to write well, just want to barf things out onto the screen.
It's interesting that while we both liked the film, some of the aspects that Ben loved the most are some of the things that I saw as being cheesy or oversentimental. It's not that I don't think a story about family and redemption could be told with this film, it's that Winans took the easy way out in the way he told it. I wasn't bothered by the time warping; I think Ben's right that you can't order the logic of the film in a linear way--it's about possibility and consequence and opportunity, like an MC Escher drawing. You follow a line and it doesn't end where it's supposed to, but if you step back and take in the whole, you can appreciate its complexity--as long as you're willing to let go of it totally making sense.
I thought the Pathfinder was great, I thought the drifters were great. I guess in retrospect, I can see what people are saying about their respective performances, but I guess I saw through the flaws to the ideas they represented, and was impressed. In fact, when it comes to low budget films in particular, I find that I do that a lot. I interpret what I think a scene or story or actor is trying to communicate and I judge it on that basis. I love ideas and get excited by them and will give lots of points for original ideas. It's really tough to actualize an idea of any sort, and if you can't see through the flaws of an idea's execution, you will sometimes miss an exciting idea forever, because it only comes around in that particular way once. I definitely use a different set of criteria when I'n watching truly independent (read: low budget) film. I wear my indie glasses!
I agree with Ben also that the film is sincere and genuine; I think Winans is telling a story from his heart. And I guess seeing that also helps me to be more forgiving of Ink's flaws.