Out in Fifty (1999) User Reviews (28)

One of the two low points of Rourke's Career.

[tarbosh22000 · 3/10 · 26 March 2004]

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

It's not as awful as I expected

[chewbaccawakka · 5/10 · 5 March 2013]

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.

either weird-bad or bad-weird

[Sula Shoo · 4/10 · 2 November 2001]

I dont get movies like this. It's just cable filler. Dull scene after dull scene and a lot of bad acting. Oh man. Rourke needs to be more picky with his choice of projects. He was one of the greats, once upon a time...

Heading for cult status

[Barclayandrew · 23 June 2003]

Here we have the basic formula for a revenge story. Mickey Rourke stars as cop whose wife is accidentally killed one evening whilst entertaining a strange young man. He then starts stalking the convict on his release.....which leads to Rourke's lust for revenge. Had the story been this straight forward on screen then it surely would've bored me to tears, but the films eccentric characters and the complex relationships within the film carry it completely. Balthazar Getty makes a cameo as a whacked out pimp/motel owner Overall well worth a look.

It's unlikely you'll see Rourke in a low budget movie again, since his career has taken off again (finally), so check this out if your a fan.

BORING!

[BrettErikJohnson · 2/10 · 15 June 2002]

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

A movie worth missing ..........

[merklekranz · 2/10 · 30 June 2016]

Unless you want to flush 95 minutes of your life down the drain, "Out in Fifty" is certainly a movie worth missing. This is truly a mixed up mess. Scott Leet seems to be trying to perfect a Clint Eastwood imitation. Mickey Rourke comes in and out of the film only to mumble his lines, take a drink, and threaten Leet for the umpteenth time. Everyone is so self indulgent that there are zero likable characters. As for the screenplay, it is severely disjointed and quite dull. Tens of minutes seem like an eternity, with nothing of interest on the screen. In short, the movie is talky to the extreme, with shaky camera, and a so what story line. Avoid. - MERK

What a mess

[Filmbear · 1/10 · 3 September 2005]

Where to begin....

Well it has every hallmark of being a first time indie movie, not that this is a bad thing but it fails to rise above that. For instance, one hallmark of a no budget movie is to beg recognizable actors to do bit parts then have the main character go meet them for a 2 minute scene. Then come up with some way of going to see that person. Now repeat this about 50 times and you have this movie. Even Mickey Rourke as one of the two main actors looks bored in this.

The camera is almost always hand-held. I was getting sick after about 10 minutes. The characters cliché. The renegade alcoholic or drug addicted cop, the ex-con trying to go straight. The plot easily predictable.

Now I give the director/writer/star (same person) big credit for actually getting this made but what a mess.

I can't recommend this to anyone. It's not gritty, edgy or anything like that. It's just a mess.

Not just bad...real bad.

[=G= · 1/10 · 26 December 2002]

Some film's are so bad they're good...or good enough to watch and laugh at. Chuck Norris' "Breaker Breaker" is one which I enjoyed watching because it was such an awful almost Vaudevillian production. Others, such as "Terror Firmer", are bad enough to be enjoyable on some level even though they're aren't good enough to garner Razzie nom's.

"Out in Fifty" is an awful film which languishes somewhere between the funny/good-awful and the Razzie candidates with its pathetic attempt to tell the story of a grudge between a macho ex-con and a psycho cop. Among the film's attributes are a stunningly horrible performance by the Osenbeck and co-Director Leet's narcissistic infatuation with his own musculature as he pumps iron.

"Out in Fifty" is the real deal...the real awful with zero potential. The producers should seriously consider getting out of the film biz and cutting their losses. (F)

Scott Anthony Leet is soooo cool!!! Phenomenal actor!!!

[princedinacon · 4/10 · 19 April 2005]

Okay movie. But let's hear it for Scott Leet.

He did an amazing job playing Ray Frye, (very Clint Eastwood-ish) a hardened ex-convict who's trying to go straight. There's one scene in the movie where Leet's character takes his first drink in 7 years.

Wow!

Guy must be a method actor because I haven't seen a great drunk scene as good as that in years. You could just see the inner turmoil all over his face as he tries to stay on his feet.

The one turn off in the movie, actually two turn-offs, was Mickey Rourke and Bojesse Christopher. Mickey was almost a non-entity in the movie, practically phoning in his performance, if you can even call it a performance, and Bojesse Christopher was just outright ridiculous. It's like he was playing a parody of a real human being while the rest of the cast was grounded in real life drama.

I hope to see more of Mr. Leet on the big screen. Major talent.

Avoid This Movie At All Costs

[Pete-135 · 2/10 · 11 May 2000]

This movie is about a young man, played by Scott Leet that accidentally kills a woman while he is in the act of a one-night stand. Unfortunately for him, the woman he kills is married to a crazed cop, played by Mickey Rourke. After Leet gets released from prison after serving seven years, he meets up with a married couple and he gets involved in a love triangle of sorts. As a subplot, Rourke is hell bent on getting revenge on Leet. I could go on, but it's really not worth the effort.

In all fairness, the above synopsis actually sounds better than the film plays. Two words that come to mind while watching this movie are "stupid" and "amateurish".

This movie was written, directed, and produced by Scott Leet and Bojesse Christopher. And as if their talent was still not being fully tapped, they also play the two main characters in the film.

Well, the story isn't very compelling, and they make the film worse by their horrible acting.

I guess Leet and Christopher raised enough money to hire a few professional actors that are "guns for hire" at this point in their career. This includes Mickey Rourke, Christina Applegate, and Peter Greene. All of them have minor roles (fortunately for them, unfortunately for the viewers).

Although Mickey Rourke has top billing in this production, he is merely a supporting character. In spite of the thin material he has to work with, Rourke delivers a very good performance.

The only thing of interest is to see how striking the bad acting is relative to the good acting in the film. Amateurs and professionals should really never mix.

Bottom-line; avoid this movie at all costs. I would give this a solid 2 out of 10.

this is bad

[Paul Craven · 1/10 · 27 May 2002]

This film looks like it was made for ten dollars and the acting is awful. Besides that, there is no story. Ughh. Pass on this one. I think Mickey Rourke needs to be more selective. These films last a long time and I think he should try to choose better roles.

Surreal, dramatic storytelling with plot twists galore

[koan-4 · 10/10 · 27 August 2000]

Surreal, complex storytelling. Excellent acting, though maybe too discordant for some viewers.

Ex-con with a good heart meets up with chronic marijuana user and his wannabe actress wife in LA. In typical indie fashion too many plot twists to spoil here. Great imagery and strong emotion. Mistaken identity, or just desserts, you decide.

Judging by the average review, many people "just don't get it."

How far would you go for millions?

Did he kill the woman, and does he deserve to die?

Good intentions meet bad characters. An ex-con just trying to go straight meets the wrong people at the wrong time.

Mickey Rourke excellent as a vengeful cop on the down-turn, where vengeance gets the best of justice, or does it?

Underrated

[2bhogan3 · 7/10 · 28 January 2008]

Out in fifty is one of those films where you know the actors were just doing it to get paid, however this film is a classic tale. This is a tale of murder and revenge, of lust and adultery and of second chances. Scott Leet is excellent in the lead role, and although Christina Applegate's character could have been played by anyone, her character is symbolic of the idea that we all deserve a second chance. Raymond Frye (Leet) receives a second chance, but it is taken away by the drunken and vengeful Jack Bracken (Rourke). Some of the cuts and camera angles in this film are quite interesting and lead you to wonder what may have been possible for this film with a bigger budget. Ultimately this is a film that will not please everyone, but when watched closely, can appeal to even the most jaded critic.

This movie is a bigger mistake then an unwanted child.

[lissa-rocks · 1/10 · 14 December 2007]

Wow, it starts bad and ends even worse. From Mickey's god awful acting to Bojess's embarrassing outfits. This movie was intended to be hard hitting and Witty as well as comical, but the only thing funny about this movie is the fact that somebody actually produced it, what a wast of money. Mickey plays a weed crazed cop who just can't leave the poor misunderstood ex-con alone. Unfortunately, that description is a tad bit ironic,as weed is the only thing that would make this movie OK. The best part of this movie is the steaming hottie Peter Greene, who plays the Mickey's cop partner. Over all, this movie is just bad, don't wast your time with it.

Scott Leet has star presence.

[aisa1 · 10 October 2003]

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?

>

Not good enough for its potential

[asgard-5 · 5/10 · 11 February 2009]

Here we have an interesting story that could've been put on film by guys like Robert Rodriguez and become a minor hit. Which didn't happen, so this film has several drawbacks. The writing and acting is a mixed bag: bigger name actors like Mickey Rourke and Peter Greene stay low-key, whilst the actors we watch for the most of the movie are trying to act all over the place. The more emotional the scenes get, the worse they play out. The photography, lighting and editing is pretty inconsistent: some very decent shots, some very decent cuts, but mostly not. You could say Scott Leet and the gang spent more effort on getting the familiar faces into their movie (the above mentioned Rourke, Greene, Ed Lauter, who was with Rourke in Eureka, and Abraham Benrubi, of ER fame), they really didn't polish their material well enough. The movie is being eaten out by a couple of really annoying characters and scenes. Leet looks like a perfect movie ex-con, but he can't carry the film on his own, since Rourke hides in the shadow, his hair, sunglasses and a cowboy hat for the whole time he's in there - he actually IS a second lead, but he rarely does something with his character. Nevertheless - a nice effort. 5 out of 10.

OUT IN FIFTY: Just Watch 'Angel Heart' Instead

[mtcla · 2/10 · 6 June 2018]

Out In Fifty, has got to be one of the worst movies i have ever watched. I can safely say i've gone through all of Mickey Rourke's films (including his catalogue of 90s trash), so you know i have sat through plenty of stinkers. Its hard to describe the film in a general sense, let alone do so in an endearing manner. Its misguided plot, unlikeable characters and penniless production value all leaving more to be desired. Even the most devoted Mickey Rourke fans, determined to see every film he's appeared in, are likely to struggle sitting through it all. Especially considering that Rourke isn't in the film anywhere near as much as he should. i cannot possibly list all the flaws; I haven't even enough space, nor does my dignity allow the time to devote. Mickey plays a man enraged by envy; caused by the murder of his wife, who was somehow killed while she cheated on him. Such backwards character foundation renders the character entirely impossible to relate to; and resultantly useless. The acting is unfortunately reminiscent of a porno constantly also; meaning every scene has a strange aesthetic which leaves one repulsed and laden with discomfort. Watch at your own risk, bearing these cautions in mind. I've done it - hopefully you now won't have to...

Happy 23rd anniversary to Out In Fifty!

[TheEx-Presidents · 10/10 · 22 June 2022]

I have so many scenes in this movie I absolutely loved, every scene was so captivating, the choreography for the fight scene was so good, the setting was interesting, the storyline, characters + performances, and all the twists and turns were so so great, the slow-building of tension throughout the story, and those last 20 minutes were absolutely crazy, while I felt the movie the finale is sad, this was still a great watch and I'd definitely recommend it!

Happy 23rd anniversary to Out In Fifty!

Scott Leet is an amazing actor!!!

[bustywriter · 7/10 · 19 April 2005]

Saw this little movie "Out In Fifty" that probably nobody in the world saw. Leet plays ex- convict killer Ray Frye from Mississippi pitch perfectly. What amazed me most was Leet's emotional depth with the character. I really wanted this ex-con, who's just trying to walk the straight line and get a second chance at life, to succeed and realize his dreams. The guy had me in tears at one point when he tells Gloria, the woman he loves, that he's been ruined and that she shouldn't want to be with him. The other thing that also struck me was how beautiful Mr. Leet is. There's a sweetness to him. Like he's a tough softie. I love that.

Great face. Great actor.

Sad

[zammitnj · 6 July 2001]

As much as I love Mickey,it has become evident that when he stars in a bad movie he gives a bad performance.Just like most of the stuff we've seen him in the 90's OUT IN FIFTY is a very poor movie and Rourke's performance here goes nowhere.In fact he seems totally disinterested. From the irritable intro to the end this film lingers on ,into oblivion. All the characters here are unwatchable.The plot,script and direction are weak to say the least. Luckily since this film it seems that Mickey Rourke is getting some richly deserved decent roles. The man deserves a break.He was afterall the most charismatic actor in the 80's. I await his comeback with bated breath.........but if one is expecting to capture his former glories in this movie......forget it.In fact avoid Out In Fifty with a vengence because it may put you off Mickey Rourke for good.

Lets get GRIZZLED!!

[pizowell · 10/10 · 19 September 2000]

Two things, Mickey Rourke and grizzled burn out. Need I say more? Sure the story is pretty dumb, but it kind of has a message. EEEHHHH, but who cares we're talking about The Mick at his burnt out best. The scene in the alley where he's drinking from the liquor bottle and in a fit of unbridled rage flings the bottle into a wall, slamming it into a million pieces is worth the price of rental alone. Mickey's dialogue is a hoot too, he's so burnt out he can barely speak and would rather beat the daylights out of you than muster the strength to look at you.

Its up to you whether to see it or not, but if your a Mick fan, more importantly a burn out Mick fan don't miss it.

a film for mickey's fans and for them feelin' blue

[alpojohn · 7/10 · 21 June 2001]

exceptional soundtrack i can say....for this film with Mickey playin' this guy -Jack- who's wife was accidently killed by a young man --Raymond Fry...now Raymond is out of jail (on parole) and the only thing he wants is peace of mind and to see his little son.But Jack's life is ruined after his wife's death...he is an alcoholic, drug addicted detective and he wants to get even for his loss...So, he follows Ray and gives him a hard time. Raymond finds a good friend who offers him a job with good money (for an ex-con). Everything seems to go fine (except from Jack never leaving him alone..) for Ray, that has a good heart and he is a decent and straight person. But things go wrong with his friend and his friend's wife....the situation becomes messy and Ray gets into the eye of the cyclone...Great, sunny atmosphere, beautiful colors and scenery, a lot of classic "Mickey attitude" that will satisfy his fans, some action and romance.RECOMMENDED!

Mickey Rourke in beast mode

[NateWatchesCoolMovies · 29 December 2017]

I usually avoid B movies where the writer/director also stars in the lead role, as it's almost always pitiable self indulgence a lá The Room. In the case of Scott Leet's Out In Fifty though, there's an exception to the rule. A violent, mean revenge story with no light at the end of the troubled tunnel, it's a bizarre, sketchy little flick that benefits greatly from Mickey Rourke as one beast of a cop on the hunt for the convict (Leet) who accidentally killed his wife in the heat of a passionate affair. Remorseful and tormented, he just wants to quietly exist after he's eventually paroled, but Rourke, still hard bitten over the incident, has other plans. That's pretty much it, but the actors sell the dour tone nicely, especially Rourke, who is at his nastiest and most scarily volatile, with a seething, bleeding broken heart behind the coiled viper, hate filled exterior. Peter Greene is terrific as his former partner who does his best to reign the guy in, and there's work from Christina Applegate, Johnny Whitworth, Ed Lauter and Balthazar Getty as a weirdo pimp/motel owner. Leet isn't bad, especially in the writing department, and holds the thing together with reasonable triple threat talents, although he has scarcely been heard of since this one. Not bad, made better by Rourke and Greene's presence, and worth it for any fan of the two heavyweights.

Better than IMDB reviews would suggest

[rettercritical · 7/10 · 21 May 2022]

This low budget film sits between a cheap genre B-movie, like a Nu-Image or PM Entertainment flick and a genuine 90s indie film with art-house sensibilities. Its flawed, has gaping holes in plot, logic and occasionally poor audio ... Yet overcomes much of this with its mixture of earnest morality tale message and decent style and aesthetic. Its not a Micky Rourke film, but he is well cast as a supporting character. It is cheaply made, but has enough energy, camera movements, stylistic touches and memorable characters to make this worth viewing. Its a nice random DVD-pick-up or late-night viewing.

one hell of a movie!

[Jensel · 10 June 2001]

I don't know how much scenes of the movie have been cut in the German TV version. While decided going to bed, I zapped around a little... and: baboom! I watched the whole movie. It's one of the movies I could watch over and over again.

First impression was, that the movie was a mixture of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (surreal), "U-Turn", a litle bit "sore loosers" and movies like that. It's a very idependent film and everybody who likes strange films with very good acting combined with a strange story, drug abuse and so on... should love this movie.

Personally, I ordered it the next day I saw it on TV.