Fifty Dead Men Walking

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.

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!

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.

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.

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