What makes it different from others?

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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

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?>

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...

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.