Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

maxtrack Where to begin, there were so many problems with this movie.The written dialogue was often weak filler and the delivery was frequently unnatural. Almost as if the moments where the actors were exploring how to deliver the dialogue were captured and used to create the movie. At times there was dialogue when it wasn't needed.Generally, a movie is good if the audience is not "aware" they are watching a movie. Thus when something in a movie forces the viewer to stop watching and think, it isn't a good movie. At one point in this film a character commits an action they regret right away, yet their dialogue states they didn't know *something* before they committed the action. However the character should still not know the *something*, yet they are lamenting what they have done because of the effect on *something*, which is unknown to them. Like a chunk of the movie is missing to explain what was going on, but actually it was just poorly written, in my estimation.The big name actors both seem to be having a bad day on set, for almost the entire film. Michael Madsen & David Carradine are so very good in Kill Bill (1&2) yet somehow it seems they made no effort in Road of No Return. It is as if we are watching two actors who just happen to look like Madsen and Carradine, but lack their talent. Maybe they just could not get into their roles, perhaps the characters felt too similar to the characters they portrayed in Kill Bill.Over acting and under acting were not the only weaknesses. The framing, lighting and dead end quality of some scenes creates an ongoing internal dialogue in the viewer. The voice in the mind of the audience is often saying things like: "Why did they shoot that scene in such a strange way?" "What was the value of that line of dialogue?" "Is this supposed to be a comedy?" "Why are the only good scenes the ones where someone is talking to the child actor?" "Is this whole movie a bizarre parody of a movie?" "Am I on candid camera as I watch this movie?"The special effects are so lame the are almost non existent. With so much gun fire I was left wondering why there were so many poorly produced effects connected to gun fire? Less gun fire done well would have been a better idea.Conceptually, the story line worked well, it was just the execution that sucked. (pardon the pun) In fact, the only reason I kept watching was to see how the story line played out.Were the actors that bad or was there something else going on which caused this production to turn into card board cut out characters? I'm still not certain, but it felt like something was restricting all of the performances as they could not have all been uniformly bad actors.In the end, this is a great movie for use in learning how NOT to shoot a movie.

jolex616 It started off really slow. I was debating on weather i should take it off or not. Horrible acting & plot was all that was bobbling in my mind. But i decided to give it a chance. Which is where all you idiots who gave up on this movie went wrong. Now im not gonna bore anyone by running down the entire film, but all i have to say is this. Im the kind of person who will analyze a movie when its done. I ask myself why did i waste my time watching this crap. Well you know what? I didn't have to worry this time. Yes it may have had some bad acting. Yes Michael Madson wasn't the main attraction, but when it ended, i thought to myself, it was well worth watching, and not as bad as i thought it would be. As a matter of fact, it was very intelligent and well done, from start to finish. It made me feel good, and put a smile on my face. For those who gave up on this film, read my post and give it another chance. And if you do, and still didn't like it, well go cry me a river....thats your problem!

davidearth7 I saw this film by chance because I am not necessarily a fan of carradine or madsen or action films for that matter. But I was quite surprised. I really enjoyed this film. It had great dialogue and good characters. But I think the flaw with this film is that because of Madsen and Carradine it draws a certain type of viewers who are less sophisticated and expect cheap action films. And I really think this movie is not an action film and is more of an extremely dark comedy with a lot of great intelligent dialogue that as one of the other reviewers mentioned covers everything from religion to politics to racism to stereotyping and more. In my opinion it should have had a different cast in place of carradine and madsen to draw more mature, educated and more indie film goers. By the way, you can shoot your gun sideways and you see that in the movies all the time.

katemuller2000 I thought road of no return was a great character driven film. Rare to see films like that. I can't believe the first reviewer. Come on guys don't just watch, listen too. Great dialogue is far more interesting than silly far fetched action scenes. The movie has so many memorable and great scenes. I particularly liked the scenes with the missionaries – I thought that scene was classic and so funny and well written – and the diner scene with the chicken – another classic and funny scene. Another moving scene was the little girl waving goodbye to the hit men outside the motel room. That made me choke. And of course the ending scene which I cannot talk about. So beautiful and unexpected. Though I didn't much care for carradine or madsen but I thought the hit men and mom and that adorable little girl were absolutely wonderful. This movie has a bit of everything, drama, action, humor, sharp and gutsy dialogue, tender moments and strong sociopolitical message. And it WORKS! I look forward to seeing more movies from this director.