Fifty Dead Men Walking (2008) User Reviews

Fantastic piece of British cinema...but not to be taken as a history lesson by any means.

[sweet_lady_genevieve · 8/10 · 28 March 2009]

Set in 1980s Belfast, when the Troubles were devastating Northern Ireland; this is the story of 22 year-old Martin McGartland (Sturgess) who, in real life, became involved implicitly with both sides of the conflict. The film details how he worked firstly for the IRA and was subsequently sought after and enlisted by the British police as a spy; leading him to live a perilous double-life. The title (taken from McGartland's book) refers to the number of people he believes he saved whilst working undercover.

The film begins by establishing him as an ordinary young man growing up within the bleak setting of West Belfast during that time, making very little money by selling knock-off goods door-to-door. He is mostly concerned with making enough money to impress his love-interest, Lara (Press); but he is also an Irish Catholic, who vehemently opposes the British occupation of the country and believes in the cause of a united Ireland. However, when he begins to work for the IRA, he becomes a first-hand witness to some of the atrocities committed by them and begins to have doubts about his political standpoint. Meanwhile, a member of Special Branch, Fergus (Kingsley), wants him to become an informant on IRA activities. Initial attempts to recruit him are useless, but McGartland eventually accepts the proposition; the violence he had witnessed still being fresh in his mind, along with the offer of a substantial sum of money in return for his work. The remainder of the film is a tense and gripping set of events, all the while focusing on McGartland's inner conflict. He is portrayed as a confused young man, exploited by both sides and absorbed completely by the two equally tormenting responsibilities which he cannot escape: on one hand, he is betraying the cause which his ancestors had given their lives to for centuries – his long-standing belief of freedom for his country; but on the other hand he is stopping the all-too-real violence he encounters on a day-to-day basis which, no matter what history has taught him, he cannot find justification for.

Although there are films which handle this subject matter far better, I feel that Fifty Dead Men Walking must be praised for the social realism and consistently gripping drama that is conveyed from the outset through the locations used, the cinematography and the outstanding performances given by the main cast. Sturgess captures the complexity of McGartland's character and, considering how difficult it must be to imitate a West Belfast accent, he and Press do a convincing job. I was compelled to watch the film from start to finish and credit is duly given for this being a fantastic piece of British cinema.

There are also, of course, the (dubious) factual elements associated with the film. It was filmed at the very location where these events were taking place little more than twenty years ago, which adds to the sheer tension felt throughout. The film is highly emotive and deals with controversial issues that have been highlighted again recently, where a dissident group, the "Continuity IRA", has claimed responsibility for the murder of a policeman. The film will resonate with people on many levels. It is true that there are overwhelming accounts of horrific violence from the Irish Republican Army (a small part of which are shown graphically in the film), yet there are many discrepancies in the film and viewers may not know the vast complicated past associated with the Troubles and so, we are presented with yet another media representation of one side of the fierce conflict in which, truthfully, equal acts of brutality have been committed on both sides throughout history. Ultimately, I would urge people to watch the film for its brilliant script, performances and drama; but not to take it as a lesson in Irish history by any means. If anything, whilst much hostility still exists today between some Nationalists and Unionists, the film succeeds in demonstrating the futility of such violence after hundreds of years of warfare and above all else, the overriding desire for peace from those people who have had to live amongst the fighting and still live with the concern that it may one day return.

A Nutshell Review: Fifty Dead Men Walking

[DICK STEEL · 7/10 · 11 July 2009]

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.

NOT a masterpiece but a damn fine film

[sjmd1156-1 · 8/10 · 23 March 2009]

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!

Good film on the life of an IRA informer during the Troubles

[joebloggscity · 7/10 · 1 May 2009]

Take one young naïve man and place him as an informer (a "Tout") on the IRA to Special Investigations/Police and you have the gist of this film. Set in Belfast, we follow the life of one guy who is in over his head (as they always are) and has to juggle both sides along with his burgeoning family commitments (girlfriend with kid etc).

A generally captivating storyline being based on a true story, and to my surprise didn't glorify any act of violence but rather shows life as a ground patrol man for the IRA in it's most gritty form. Tries to steer clear of cliché and does a fine job.

Acting is fair and most actors fill in their roles very comfortable. Ben Kingsley is wonderful as the Special Investigators sponsor, whilst Jim Sturgess as the informer keeps you on side throughout the film. Rose McGowan as an IRA intelligence officer is the only person who seems out of place but likely was there to add a bit more colour to the surroundings but doesn't take away from the film too much.

Overall, an enjoyable analysis of life in the IRA. Add in a good soundtrack and some able camera work and you have in total a very good film. Good viewing.

Pretty decent Northern Ireland political thriller set in the 1980s

[mrcibubur · 7/10 · 15 January 2010]

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!

Walking of the dead...

[Thanos_Alfie · 7/10 · 22 February 2014]

"Fifty Dead Men Walking" is a true story movie which has to do with Martin McGartland's life story. This story shows us Martin McGartland who is recruited by the British Police to spy on the IRA.

I liked this movie because it's a movie that is based on a true story and because of its plot. I also liked it because of the cast and the interpretations of it. Ben Kingsley who plays as Fergus made a great interpretation and Jim Sturgess who played as Martin McGartland made an also great interpretation for one more time. I also believe that Kari Skogland did a nice job in the direction of this movie.

Finally I have to tell you that I really recommend this movie because it shows us a different way of things and how these things happened.

Woefully Underrated

[BunnyNC · 9/10 · 19 June 2010]

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.

Never really becomes the film it should have been

[bob the moo · 22 November 2009]

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.

Why Do Films Dealing With The Troubles Embellish " True Stories " ?

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 21 September 2012]

This film hit the headlines when female lead Rose McGowan stated if she'd be born in Belfast she'd have " one hundred per cent have been in the IRA " . Hmm I wonder if she'd have been born in the protestant areas of the city she might have been in the UVF or UFF ? Maybe if she'd been born in the Middle East she'd have moved to America and taken up flying lessons ? Who knows ? What is certain is she might have appeared in the film but failed to understand it in anyway because this - unlike so many films financed by American money dealing with the recent troubles - is not a flag waver for the fascist Provisional IRA . In fact it comes close to being the best film about the troubles but ruins itself in the final third

To elaborate the audience are given the background to how the troubles started so thankfully the producers aren't going to equate Irish good and Brits bad . Even better the audience are shown that the provisional IRA aren't the noble are courageous freedom fighters portrayed in the likes of THE DEVIL'S OWN . They rob , maim torture and kill members of their own community , a community they claim to to protect . Try and think of an Irish Joe Pesci in a Martin O' Scorsese picture where the gangsters don't stick to their own and you've got the idea. Apparently this idea is beyond Ms McGowan. In short this is a film dealing with complex and sensitive issues and for the most part deals with them very well . In short 50 DEAD MEN WALKING had me thinking it was going to surpass HARRY'S GAME as the best thriller set against the troubles but it sadly failed in the end

The problem lies in the storytelling . It's easy to overlook minor details such as Martin McGartland surviving a murder attempt in Canada when in fact the attempted assassination took part in Nothern England but what spoils the film is the need to bring OTT action sequences in it when the film doesn't need embellishment and was doing very well without it and for some reason the film contrives to bring more and more action to the story . Take for example the ridiculous shoot out in the pub which never happened in reality . This is followed by a riot where Martin is being held captive which didn't happen in reality followed by Martin's successful escape from the provos - just not as happened in real life . The only reason for changing this fact is to set up an " exciting it says here " car chase to the hospital with special branch policeman Fergus driving to the hospital with all guns blazing with the IRA in hot pursuit. Do I have to point out this sequence never happened in reality either ?

Dear oh dear . Yet another almost good film dealing with Northern Ireland where the truth would have been a bit more interesting than fiction . IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER also suffered from the same flaws by playing hard and loose with the facts but IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER still remains a compelling drama where as 50 DEAD MEN WALKING is ruined to a degree by wanting to be an action thriller when it worked best as a taut drama

Thrilling despite some clichés and many inaccuracies

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 9/10 · 12 September 2010]

"50 Dead Man Walking" is an account on the life of Martin McGartland, a young thief recruited by the British police to the difficult mission of infiltrate on IRA (in the 1980's) and help the British to discover informations over possible attacks. Jim Sturgess plays the divided young lad who works his way up on many different sides, as a member of the IRA, as a family man, as a devoted friend of his Irish mates and as a informant for the mysterious Fergus (Ben Kingsley). During all this he realizes the incredible potential of saving people lives (his informations are very valuable for the British) but he also notices the excruciating burden of betraying his friends and family confidence. Will this guy survive to tell his story? Can he trust Fergus? What about his duties on IRA?

The story was real, it really happened (some things were created for unnecessary dramatic purposes e.g. the scene where Martin escapes by jumping of a window, that happened but the height was exaggerated here). It is well told, dramatically interesting and very thrilling. The way director Kari Skogland worked was very efficient, and a story about someone being infiltrated on the IRA wasn't much portrayed in films before and that was very interesting to see despite some clichéd things that takes you back to similar movies like "Donnie Brasco" and "The Departed".

Jim Sturgess gets right again with an incredible performance as the troubled main character. If you had the opportunity to watch any of his other films you will notice that he knows how to work with many different accents very easily (he speaks Irish brilliantly). I must say that it was difficult to accept Sir Ben Kingsley in the role of Martin's chief during his first minutes on screen and I thought that Bob Hoskins would be a more interesting choice to play this guy but when the movie evolves you start to like his performance. The movie also features Rose McGowan (as Martin's wife) and Kevin Zegers (Martin's sinister best friend).

Wrongfully translated here as "The Spy", "50 Dead Man Walking" is a great movie about personal ethics versus majority ethics; trust or the lack of it; and the many aspects of a terrible endless war and their almost uncredited heroes and their good (and bad) actions. 9/10

You are not a man unless you have a cause.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 18 July 2009]

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

Great Movie and Worth Seeing!!! Great performances by all.

[sdeaves-fisher · 10/10 · 22 September 2008]

I saw the film at the Toronto Film Festival and liked it a great deal. The film is violent in parts, but this violence is necessary to truly show the times and the conflict that was going on between Ireland and England. I felt that both sides were presented in the movie, never showing too much favor to one or the other. It was a terrible and long period in UK history with far too much death and hate and this movie makes it clear for those of us that have little knowledge of it. I had no idea that this conflict went on for the length of time that it did or how the IRA operated before viewing the film, nor did I know that the IRA was as operational today as it is, they found Martin in hiding and tried to kill him again in Canada years later.

Jim's performance as Martin was excellent and believable as was Ben's. I recommend spending the time to see the movie when it is released.

Take a side.... Take both...

[yxo-1 · 7/10 · 2 August 2009]

It's an 'acudrama', but it does have cinematographic value.

The glass is not half full OR half empty. It is half full AND half empty.

The IRA vs. the British Occupying Forces and its Intelligence Services. There are fathers and sons on both sides. THAT is the main theme of the film. When Martin, who was just shot, and is probably dying, asks about the family, he names Dean ("Fergus"). Passionate Mikey - one of the senior members of the IRA - recommends and promotes Martin and in the ecstasy of his initiation talks with profusely tearful face about the drama involving his son, clearly identifying him with Martin.

The passion/sadistic exaltation free from guilt (because it is covered by ideological indulgence) fuels the majority of the characters on BOTH sides. Terrorism/insurgency and anti-terrorist security forces always are charged by the excitement of having a license to kill, torture and terrorize.

Interestingly, the only true integrity in the film (like in real life) is evident in those whose loyalty would be questioned by the majority of the functionaries on both sides. There are some not so believable scenes: i.e. "Fergus" trusting the 'confession' about the whereabouts of Martin or the scene of Martin's escape through the window.

However, the film is well worth watching.

Rubbish

[andidektor · 1/10 · 2 October 2008]

Fifty Dead Men Walking milks every stereotype, repeats every newsreel image of "the troubles" we've ever seen, grafts in a miscast Ben Kingsley and the ludicrous Rose McGowan for a bit of international appeal (McGowan's first appearance would raise an embarrassed snigger in an episode of Prison Break - and not too many girls in the 1970's seduced the boys by calling them "cute"...), and layers it all with maudlin melodrama and TV-movie plotting.

The NI tourist board brochure has provided the locations - the supposedly clandestine meetings have well known landmarks looming in the background, which places the action in some of the most conspicuous locations in Ireland.

Visually it's a trendy, de-saturated muddle that seems to suck out the dramatic point of many scenes - but then so does the constant play for emotional undertones in scenes that are so flatly played and presented that it's impossible to empathise. The silly comic book reduction of "the troubles" is visually reminiscent of the facile UK Government anti-terrorist propaganda TV advertising of the 1980's and 1990's - but the drama is so b-movie formulaic that it loads a bucket load of clichés into a refuse skip that's already full of them. Kingsley shooting from the back of an ambulance at the IRA baddies in hot pursuit? Stand-up sexual encounters against the neon sign atop the Europa Hotel? A street encounter with a soldier that escalates in moments from banter to confrontation to fight to arrest to full-blown-Bloody-Sunday-style riot - complete with the miraculous appearance of THE DISTRAUGHT MOTHER shouting "He's my son!"...? Bad, amateurish, cartoon nonsense.

There's plenty of comment about the crude use of music in other IMDb entries, so I won't labour that criticism. It's a blunt, manipulative strategy that indicates the shallowness of the film. An early example of a similar slackness in the overall production design is the inclusion of slick, modern graffiti in the background of some driving scenes. Interesting to see that Belfast graffiti pre-dated the rest of the world in street style by about twenty years... I suppose the director thought that the nice colours and stylised lettering of today's street graffiti would fit in with the slick surface stylings of her masterpiece. That's about as deep as it goes.

This movie is an insult to anyone who lived through "the troubles". It's even an insult to more serious films about NI's past, because it perpetuates convenient stereotypes and distorts facts as it pleases.

Watch Hunger.

Based on ...

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 14 September 2009]

Sometimes life gives us (or any director/screenwriter/producer etc.) stories, that are so amazing and touching, that a movie is inevitable. And although the "based on true ..." tag, might be like a cross/garlic to a vampire for some, I think it works here. The movie stays in a very raw and real environment.

Jim Sturgess is the Center piece of course and you might have seen him in a couple of other movies. He is really great and he plays his characters (real people or fictional) with such an ease, that you can't distinguish, if he's actually acting or if that's just him on the screen. Which is a very good thing indeed. Based around his performance the movie seems to have some pacing problems, but then again since this is based on real events, that could be something we should expect. A good movie, with a great actor in it then.

Somewhat biased and adjusted for the North American audience

[Mark Harrison · 11 June 2010]

I will not summarise the film as many people have already done that here. What want to do is comment on some of the inaccuracies and bias in the film.

1 Firstly as someone else pointed out Martin was never shot in Canada

2 In one part of the film KIngsely says that the IRA are terrorists and Martin replies that he is discriminated against by the British who act like terrorists. This is never challenged and its never mentioned that the security forces contain Northern Irish people too. The film acts almost as if protestants are not legitimate citizens on Northern Ireland. It seems to want to reduce the conflict to the facile level of a British army occupying Ireland which is what ignorant Americans always claimed. So in this way it panders to ignorance.

3 For the information of the film makers people in 1980's Northern Ireland referred to parking lots as car parks, called hoods, yobs or hoodlums, and did not used the sentence construction 'get to' as in 'I get to have a new car...'. The attempt to Americanise the English language (presumably so that ignorant people can understand it better) detracts from its realism.

4 At the beginning of the film Martin runs from a police/ Army checkpoint and is chased until he is caught. I can assure the film makers that in Northern Ireland at that time anyone running from a checkpoint would have been shot. Ohh but then we would have had no film, so that can't be allowed to happen can it?

Nearly a modern Harry's Game - but not quite.

[the-reel-thing · 6/10 · 27 November 2009]

For those with a long memory or an interest in this area of history, there was a brilliant TV drama in the 80's in the UK called Harry's Game about an British soldier working undercover agent in the IRA. What that captured was the terror and constant threat of working day in day out with people who would kill you - slowly - if they ever found out. And whilst this film is a solid effort to portray a true story of a young catholic recruited by the Brits to inform on his friends and neighbours, you never really felt as if he was scared, ever. And he most definitely would have been. However, the film moves along well and keeps you entertained. It is just a shame that the characters feel a little 2 dimensional and stereotypical. I think that the film tried too hard to be impartial. There was no sides taken here, no rights or wrongs on the political front and that meant that it felt like no-one really cared and that everyone was equally good/bad. That may be the reality of a conflict like Northern Ireland, but as a dramatic event it made the film falter. However, for audiences not aware of the history of NI and with no axe to grind, then this is a nice thriller with enough to keep you awake

This should have been a much better movie.

[jaybob · 6/10 · 7 January 2010]

Kari Skogland directed Micheal Davies screenplay based on Martin McGortland's book,on the authors 'adventures'first as a Belfast punk then a police informer who infiltrates the IRA & informs on them.

Now I do not care how noble or righteous a cause may be, BUT an informer is at the bottom of the totem pole.

Jim Sturgiss is effective as the troubled lad.

Ben Kingsley is good as usual as the English cop who is his controller.

Natalie Press is quite good as his young girl friend.

There are many violent scenes including some good torture ones.

Now here we come one of the points where I was turned off. All these action scenes are done using hand-held cameras. It reached a point where I could not tell what was being done to who & I really did not care.

A few comments have been made on the thick accents. The DVD is closed captioned so I had no trouble this way.

I normally like films about the IRA & the troubles with the English. There have been many movies on this subject over the years.

This should have been a better film, I wish it were.

Ratings: **1/2 (out of 4) 71 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)

A 'true-story' type of film that is actually good to watch

[Mike-DD · 8/10 · 29 March 2014]

I went into this without much expectation, since I don't normally watch "true-story" films, but I was pleasantly surprised.

It's basically about a Belfast man recruited by British intelligence to spy on the IRA during the Troubles. After the starting "high", he begins to struggle with moral dilemmas, like informing on friends. In the meantime, his personal life becomes more complicated with a pregnant girlfriend and family troubles.

I enjoyed Ben Kingsley's character - the handler Fergus, and Jim Sturgess played Martin surprisingly well. The story moves along briskly, but still left a bit of time for you to ponder the choices being made. I thought the execution was well-done too. It really made you feel for the main characters - you can literally feel Martin's anguish (on so many levels) and Fergus' self-righteousness (deserved or not) at times.

Be aware though that the real Martin disavows the film though. So I'm now interested in reading the book so I can read his version of it.

Fascinating journey of one man's experience

[jordondave-28085 · 7/10 · 12 October 2023]

(2008) Fifty Dead Men Walking THRILLER

Adapted from the book of the same name written by Martin McGartland and Nicholas Davies, co-produced, co-written and directed by Kari Skogland, the true story showcasing the journey regarding a particular IRA informant, Martin McGartland (Jim Sturgess)! Ben Kingsly is great as always as the English inspector, Fergus in charge of guaranteeing his informant's safety. There is though, some meandering parts, which tend to drag the story down a little, but enlightening stuff about actual IRA's protocol and history nevertheless. Some interesting 'footnotes' at the film's ending.

Nice surprise

[gmadams59 · 9/10 · 13 November 2009]

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!

Weapons

[robertwatson · 6/10 · 18 February 2021]

It's was SLRs in the early 80s not SA80s it would help as every thing else tries to fit into the era.

Great Movie

[nirishlad-277-397761 · 9/10 · 28 January 2012]

If you are from N.Ireland an grew up in the 1980's this movie paints a very close picture to the real thing, I was blown away by Jim Sturgess N. Irish accent, he had it down to a tee!!!

A must to understand what kids in N. Ireland used to and to some degree still go through.

Another movie if u like this one is Resurrection Man, this Film was based on the deeds of the Shankhill Butchers in 1970s

Another good one is Five Minutes Of Heaven, this is set In February, 1975, in Northern Ireland, seventeen year-old UVF member Alistair Little kills the catholic Jimmy Griffin in his house in Lurgan in front of his younger brother Joe Griffin. Alistair is arrested and imprisoned for twelve years while Joe is blamed by his mother for not saving his brother. Thirty-three years later, a TV promotes the meeting of Alistair and Joe in a house in River Finn, expecting the truth and the reconciliation of the murderer and the victim who actually seeks five minutes of heaven.

Good tight thriller

[iain0511 · 7/10 · 3 February 2021]

A good, gritty thriller about one mans struggles todo the right thing amongst the troubles of Northern Ireland in the late 80s. There have been a few good efforts to portray ordinary people caught in extraordinary situations but this must be one of the worst. Undercover in the IRA if you were a Brit would be scary, but as a young catholic native of Belfast the sense that you were betraying your own community must weigh heavy.good performances all round - never dipping into cliches - and a lovely ambiguity over who was good and who was bad. It reminded me of one of my favourite British TV dramas - Charlie's Game - dealing with a very similar subject and period. Watch this and then re watch the excellent '71 for a great double feature

a short comment

[jon_mont · 1/10 · 28 October 2009]

could not believe this film made it to release. why cast English, American and Canadian actors to portray characters from the north of Ireland? why not include details of how martin mcgartland climbed the ranks of the I.R.A.? why make this film at all? here's why. for the north American market. most Americans (understandably) know very little about the troubles. because of this Skogland was able to throw together a mixed up hotch potch of imagery, blurred ethics and dire accents to make a movie for naive audiences. in short, if you know anything about the history of Irish troubles or are Irish yourself, give this movie a miss. i want those 117 minutes back.