Road of No Return

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.

I caught this movie on my tv like 30 minutes into the actual movie, I thought it was supposed to be a comedy but after looking it up I realized the movie was supposed to be a serious action/thriller. You will probably like the movie a lot more if you take it less serious, but overall it's still pretty bad. The characters I guess were trying to be interesting but overall they were just goofy. It's pretty clear this movie was trying to go for a good mix of action/comedy but they just suck at doing what they were trying to do and could not mix these two together. They were trying to do what Pulp Fiction does but did it worse on every level. Surprised I caught this movie in 2023 because it feels like something that would just be completely forgotten. Watch the movie if you like to laugh at how mediocre it is, that's about it.

I liked this film not b/c it had spectacular action sequences but b/c it was a thinking man's action film, it had heart, it had characters that had a past and had something to say. You don't usually see that with Hollywood films in particular action films. So it was quite refreshing specially that you don't expect it. But I must say that I was a bit disappointed that Carradine and Madsen's time on screen was limited but I think others did a really good job carrying the film. However, the production value at times was weak, you could see that it had been made on a shoe-string budget. It was definitely an indie film and it showed but I like low budget indie films. The film worked for me and left an impression. If you don't like dialog this film is not for you.

I saw a reasonable review for this movie and this combined with two well known actors persuaded me to give it a chance. Bad mistake, the characters were paper thin, the action was boring and badly executed, and the plot/script was very weak.

Caradine and Madsen were not the main characters (from length of time on the screen anyway) and so the film didn't really benefit greatly from their presence. I wasn't expecting a dumb action movie but that would have been preferable to what I did see, which was mostly dull and uninspired.

There were several attempts at comedy in the movie that I thought just didn't work very well. When I see Indie films they are quite often hit or miss and I often love or hate them, this one I just didn't like much. As a final thought, I think someone likened this film to Pulp Fiction but while there may have been some vague attempt at copying that style, sadly it falls far, far, far short of that movie.

"Road Of No Return" was one of the last movies David Carradine made before his death. Curious about if he was still able to give an entertaining performance at this time like his past performances was one reason why I rented it. Another reason was that Michael Madsen was also in the movie. The front of the DVD box seems to suggest that they are the two lead actors in the movie, but that isn't so - they are given supporting roles. Not only that, I noticed that though they share several scenes together, not once do you see both actors at the same time. (Obviously, they were each filmed at separate times and edited together later.) And Carradine looks very old and tired in all of his scenes.

I probably could have lived with those facts had the rest of the movie been entertaining, but in actual fact there's not much entertaining here. The movie has a sense of humor that is occasionally amusing, but is mostly loud and tiresome. While the movie is decently shot on a poverty row budget, the other production values are often flawed, with stuff like one shot being repeated, stock footage, and obvious post-dubbed dialogue. But the biggest problem is that the movie eventually comes to a slow crawl, and it's tiresome making the slow slog to the end. Some more gratuitous action and pruning down of scenes would have helped considerably.