Out in Fifty

Let's face it, Out in Fifty is just a movie to kill time watching (but aren't they all?). That said, Scott Leet did an excellent job with his role. The guy's got real star presence. With a little luck Leet will get a break in a first-tier film and make it big. Hey, if a limited-talent like Vin Diesel can make it, why can't a more-talented Leet?

>

It looked pretty cheap on the DVD but I gave it a chance as it's got Mickey Rourke in it. The film itself is obviously a low budget independent film but it didn't turn out as bad as I expected, I have seen a lot worse films (Troll 2, Birdemic, Skyline) and compared to them, this one is pretty good.

Mickey Rourke gave a good performance as a alcoholic cop who wants revenge on a man who gets released from prison for the murder of Rourke's wife.

A little dark and at times tries to act like a Tarantino films, especially at the intro. If you can pass some of the mediocre performances by some people, then you won't mind watching this at least once. I'm glad I got this one cheap, not the best film ever but not as awful as people say.

This is a desperate attempt to be an edgy film but it fails miserably. You know you're in trouble when a film relies on cameos to keep things interesting. "Out in Fifty" is no exception. Appearances by Christina Applegate, Balthazar Getty, and Alexis Arquette don't do anything to forward the plot. They all do a fine job but are given extremely little screen time. Mickey Rourke is absolutely pathetic in his role and really should consider giving up acting. "Out in Fifty" is filmed with a lot of quick takes in spots, which is more likely to induce a seizure rather than make you more excited about the movie. The "plot" involves a guy who is celebrating his 21st birthday in a bar. A young woman picks him up and they have some rough sex. He ends up accidentally killing her and goes to prison for manslaughter. Seven years later he is released and the woman's husband, a cop, becomes obsessed with making the guy's life very difficult. There is also a side plot involving the ex-con and the couple he moves in with. It's all really rather dull and meaningless. 2/10

Out in fifty. No! More than 50 minutes of boring scenes. This movie did not in any way impress me and my friends. The plot is hard to pick up and the scenes are practically flat and bad. A guy gets imprisoned for accidentally killing a hooker whom he had sex wearing an underwear. And what's another guy doing in that same room? Sightseeing! The next scenes were all boring and nowhere to go. If you haven't got a thing to do, don't pick this movie up in the video store. Just go home and watch the latest news on TV or better yet watch a cartoon film.

The other film is "Point Blank" (1997) In this one he plays a really, strung out cop on the edge. He drinks,smokes, and speaks in monotone. That's not the character, that's Rourke. He's unshaven and mumbles so much you can't hear what he's saying. He has one scene with James Avery (Uncle Phil from the "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air") that's just hilarious. You need subtitles. Just watch it for Rourke's non-performance. If he thought the character "Jack Bracken" was like this, this is an amazing performance begging for repeat viewings. I like Mickey Rourke. He is a excellent actor, with masterpieces like "Year of The Dragon " (1985), "Barfly" (1987), and "Pope of Greenwich Village" (1984). This is just a detour which he will eventually go on the right track.

For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com