Fifty Dead Men Walking

As with any film on Northern Ireland it is good to see the message board full of debate about who the "good guys" were in Northern Ireland, who was in the right, who was in the wrong etc etc with occasionally someone talking about the film. I'll leave all of that to those guys but, as one has to do with these films for some reason, I will lay out my colours for all to see. Although I moved away around age 20, I was born in Belfast and grew up as a Protestant in North Antrim. I don't think I brought any of that to this film but for some that will be enough to explain why I didn't like this film.

Actually, it will probably be enough for viewers from both side of that political spectrum because the film manages to be such a thing that it is possible to side with both the IRA and the police/army. To a certain point this is a good thing because it asks you to sympathise/dislike both groups, which is true I guess because in the conflict nobody is 100% right or wrong – both sides have fundamental points but yet have done so much wrong as to make them a distant memory. However, this is only "to a point" because it doesn't strike me as a deliberate thing so much as it is a side-effect of the film not really getting to the heart of the matter or the characters. The Northern Ireland of the film is secondary to the central "Donnie Brasco-esquire" story, which again is not a problem in and of itself, just that you're not used to that with Northern Irish films, but it does cause a problem because by not doing a good job of laying out a convincing base, the film does feel a little superficial.

This is made more evident by the way it is directed but also the way that accuracy is often set aside in favour of having set pieces and action. Such sequences don't really work and stand out awkwardly as being out of place and not belonging in a film set in this time and place – it is not as bad as The Devil's Own in this regard but you get my point. All this aside though, the film should work in the same way Donnie Brasco did because I didn't come to that film moaning about the lack of convincing mob detail etc etc but rather really enjoyed it as a film. Sadly the things that this film should be taking from Donnie Brasco and repeating are lacking. This problem comes from the material because it doesn't engage as it should and the characters, beyond Lara, don't do that much. To be precise what I felt was missing was key relationships for Martin. His relationship with his handler isn't that good in their shared scenes, while he lacks a "Lefty" in the IRA. This takes away the majority of the opportunities for scenes in which the strain comes through and we get to see conflicting sides of Martin, like we did in Donnie Brasco, and this is a shame because it does mean the film loses a lot.

It is still a solid watch though, so don't take my negativity as a sign that it was awful – just that it seemed to miss a lot of what it could and should have been doing. It is all helped a lot though by Sturgess in the lead. Now part of me wonders why more actual Northern Irish actors couldn't have been used at that level but Sturgess does do a good job and clearly could have done more with better and more complex material. Funnily enough Kingsley is part of the problem. He is far too stiff and too clearly "acting" – he prevents much in the way of chemistry and does nothing to tell us how he was able to reach Martin. The supporting cast do their turns reasonably well but only Press really stands out as she brings a bit of emotion and discussion to the film.

Overall Fifty Dead Men Walking is more about what it is not rather than what it is. As a film set in the troubles, it doesn't do a particularly good job depicting them. As a thriller it doesn't manage to be engaging enough to thrill. As a Donnie Brasco type story set in Northern Ireland (which is what it is) it doesn't do the things that made that film successful. It is still OK in most regards but it never really becomes the film it should have been.

The main attraction of this story is not of the violent politicking between the British and the IRA, where you see how either side become both the oppressed and the oppressor with their imposition of rules and regulations executed sometimes on a whim. This film doesn't seek out to preach the truth and has from the start stated that it had taken plenty of liberties with the story, inspired by the true story of an undercover agent's role in the IRA, being a trusted source and informant to the British, until he was played out as a political pawn and had to forever be on the run. Welcome to the world of clandestine operations, where the only rule of the game is to survive.

It takes a lot to go undercover and work as a mole. This duality is already very keenly spelled out in films such as Infernal Affairs (OK, so this is a very referenced film, but one to me that had raised the bar up so high), where one can be seduced by sheer power, or corruption of morality that one's supposed to be guarded against. It's no fun having to play act all the time, constantly looking over your shoulder at every turn, and practically living in fear that you'll be discovered due to carelessness, and be dished out punishment with unimaginable pain as just desserts.

Fifty Dead Men Walking refers to the number of persons that were saved from one man's diligent work as an undercover, without whom they would be sitting ducks to assassination attempts. In being timely to surface credible information to thwart would-be incidents, you're always be put in a position where your identity will be compromised, since the number of "moles"eliminated with each unsuccessful operation, will narrow the shortlist down to a few suspects. For Martin McGartland (Jim Sturgess), a wayward youth in Belfast who doesn't take sides, he becomes the perfect cover for British Intelligence officer Fergus (Ben Kingsley), who has to convince the former of his value to the cause, the British and not the Irish one that is.

So it's not just the usual Spy versus Spy where the source Martin becomes a hero overnight, but the film traces the long and arduous road of his rise into the inner echelons, while feeding off from the support of his handler Fergus to occasionally bail him out of tight situations. It's very much based on the themes of trust and betrayal. For Martin, with every step of trust that he gains from the IRA head honchos, it's also a proportional step of betrayal that's at his disposal, with each disclosure of operational plans and targets to Fergus. And trust is not easy between him and Fergus as well, and both of them knows it very clearly that either has the power within them, at any time, to call off this understanding of truce between both men, and betray the other.

It's a film that dwells on these themes successfully, and both Sturgess and Kingsley bring their characters quite alive by their electrifying portrayals of men trying to do the right thing, to make their worlds a better place to live in and save the lives of innocents on both sides. Besides being just plain handler and source, their professional relationship grows from the testing phase where negotiated chips sometimes don't get fulfilled, to a father-son one as they realize that they only have each other to depend on, as the big picture politics start to get in the way and threaten their solid partnership. Both actors feed off this great chemistry between them to bring out common elation with each successful stint, and fear when things start to go awry.

And with success breeds contempt, which puts the last 20 minutes of the film into a gripping but eventually emotional finale, that roads paved with good intentions more often than not, lead to Hell, or in McGartland's case, an everlasting personal torture. As with all clandestine operations, a pawn who grows too successful will garner unwanted attention from those who are morally corrupt, and basically there's no such thing as a thank you note of gratitude, only instances of how useful one can be constantly. When you outlive your usefulness, expect to be tossed out like the rest of the thrash.

What sagged the film was the attempt to provide more dimension to Martin McGartland through his romantic life, in the form of live-in girlfriend Lara (Natalie Press) and a Mata Hari-type temptress and boss Grace (Rose McGowan), both of which became somewhat of a distraction to the flow of the narrative, especially the needless un-seductive moves of the latter. Otherwise, Ben Kingsley and Jim Sturgess' performances should draw you into the film, as would the themes and premise of the film.

Based on the life of Martin McGartland, who was recruited by the British Police to spy from within the Irish Republican Army, Fifty Dead Men Walking is the latest cinematic attempt to bring awareness to the horrors of the British/Irish troubles. At the end of the film there is a disclaimer about the accuracy of the film in relation to McGartland's actual book of the same name. While it should be noted that McGartland himself has renounced the film in British film magazines as not being his story. What we do know is that Martin McGartland is a real person who really did spy for the British Police inside the IRA. It's also fact that he saved close to 50 men from being killed as part of the long running conflict, and he is in fact still in hiding to this very day.

So with that in mind it's a film to be viewed both with suspicion and intrigue. There is no denying that the harshness of the plot and some of its scenes {ouch, torture} impacts like a sledgehammer, but crucially it's hard to get on side with the unlikable McGartland {brilliantly played by rising Brit star Jim Sturgess}. In spite of his achievements in thankfully stopping many murders down the line, his motives are mixed and not necessarily prioritised. Having not read the book myself I have no idea if the portrayal of himself is what McGartland objects too? Or it may well be that he is shown as being in places he clearly wasn't? Still, character affinity is probably not what the makers were after anyway, they view the conflict from primarily one side, and in the main they achieve that without looking biased or guilty of sensationalism. Certainly the play off between Martin, his best mate and IRA baddie, Sean, is very engrossing as things start to get hairy. While the relationship between Martin and Ben Kingsley's copper, Fergus, is one of the film's strengths.

Not so good is the shoe-horned in part of Grace {a miscast Rose McGowan} and the ending feels rushed in relation to the pace that preceded it. A potent soundtrack featuring the likes of The Ruts and Stiff Little Fingers mingles perfectly with the grainy portrait of Northern Ireland that director Kari Skogland has opted for. Whilst the script is sharp and never drifts off to filler speak and pointless musings on the moral quandaries that are thrown up. As a history lesson on the Irish troubles it's barely worth any interest, as a character study about people within the troubles? Well it's definitely of interest there. 6.5/10

I had no idea who martin McGartland was until I watched this movie, unlike the main character in HUNGER and ironically I watched this directly after watching matt Damon in The Informant. If that title was misleading, this one certainly was not, though working out why they called it 50 dead Men walking takes some thinking about in the context of the movie. It refers of course to the 50 men who would have died if Mr McGartland didn't save them from assassination.

This is a very powerful piece of British drama set in the 1980s. it is a very intense film but the story is easy to follow and the film overall is enjoyable without ever being full of violence or bad language. I still have images in my mind from HUNGER and FIVE MINUTES OF HEAVEN, not top mention the 'Barley' movie and of course Michael Collins.

I do agree that too much attention as a distraction in the movie to the two young women who feature in Mr McGarlands life and there should have been greater emphasis on the actual political role he had to play for the IRA and for the British Police.

Harrys Game was indeed a top production but should not be compared to this new movie. Ben Kingsley was 'spot on' as Fergus and added the quality to the film it might otherwise have lacked.

another well made British film, keep it up!

I've never written a review before and don't really feel very qualified to do so, but I felt so strongly about this film that I wanted to do more to recommend it than giving the star rating.

Jim Sturgess turns in an incredibly moving and amazing performance as Martin, the young man who gets caught up with the IRA via his friends, only to be turned by "Fergus," played by Kingsley in a very different and understated role than we're used to seeing him.

Martin is torn between the cause and his friends vs. the ever-growing violence against innocents. He becomes a father and ultimately decides to be a source for Fergus, infiltrating deep and high into the organization. We live through his angst, fright, joy, sorrow, regret, rage and pride as he evolves.

Kingsley's portrayal of Fergus -- a hard and closed-off guy who comes to uncharacteristically care deeply about Martin -- is played brilliantly, with just the right low-key nuance in manner of speaking and facial expression that allow you to see his emotional wall crumbling a bit for Martin.

But there are costs for Martin regardless which path he takes, just a grim and sad result of the fractious climate between the IRA and British soldiers/police.

The storyline, the style of filming (sorry, I'm not adept with technical terms), the wonderful development of the Martin character (and to a lesser extent, Fergus), along with the incredible performance by Sturgess (I would go so far as to say even Oscar-worthy) really make this film memorable and worth your time.