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.

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.

I don't care about the accuracy. It's closer than 90 percent of what we see out of Hollywood. Having said, kudos to Canadian director Kari Skogland on a terrifically entertaining film. Great performances by all actors. Ben Kingsley and Jim Sturgess were especially great. They obviously had good chemistry which played out on the screen. Jim Sturgess is a talented young actor. The soundtrack was exactly right, helping to create a sense that I had just had a glimpse into what their lives must've been like. I measure films based on how they made me feel. This one was a "Wow!"

Look forward to seeing more from all!

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 read the book going by the same name many years ago when it first came out and it left quite an impression on me. I felt very sympathetic to Mr McGartland's predicament, so I for one am glad that his story can largely be told in this medium. Read the book to iron out the odd discrepancy and to get the time-line correct. The director of this film bravely attempted to show 'The Troubles' as viewed from both sides in the short time the film allows. Although not all of the events are true, the film does realistically portray the truly chilling times. It is violent, nasty and tense, and I congratulate the director on not pulling any punches and showing the sort of menace that haunted the streets in the province. The makers of the film did state: 'The screenplay to the film is INSPIRED by the book. Although many aspects and characters have been changed the screenplay was not written or approved by the writers of the book and is not a reproduction or adaptation of the book or any substantial part of it' at the end of the film. I would suggest that wording was inserted to cover themselves. Certainly, Mr McGartland was not happy with the film to begin with as it showed him to be present at deaths that took place, to which he claimed he was not. Obviously, there are faults with the film then. But the main thrust of the book/film for me was that Mr McGartland was young, naive but also courageous, he was used by both sides and yet eventually couldn't trust either side. Although the peace treaty has been signed and to 'all intents and purposes' the Troubles are over 'as we knew them', it is a well known fact that the IRA never forget those that cross them. So the film is a reminder to many that this man gave up his life as he knew it for very little in return and to be forever on the run. This is not your typical Hollywood fare and is all the better for it. A job well done!