Highly Overrated But Still Good

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

In 1999 Canada, Martin McGartland (Jim Sturgess) is shot several times by a masked man. The movie flashes back to 1988 Belfast, Northern Ireland. He's a petty criminal and small time trader. IRA squad leader Mickey Johnson tries to recruit him. He and his friends have confrontations with IRA thugs. He is then recruited by British Special Branch operator Fergus (Ben Kingsley). He becomes a low level IRA member and starts informing on their operations. It's a dangerous double life. The film claims his activities saved fifty men from IRA attacks.Jim Sturgess is great and the setting is terrific. Running through the alleys is thrilling. There is a great atmosphere. It is a little confused. A lot of that has to be the thick accents. I would love to have subtitles for this movie.

In today's day and age, this movie should probably be required viewing for all who seem to feel that only Muslims are terrorists. "Fifty Dead Men Walking" is set in Belfast, Northern Ireland during what is euphemistically known as "The Troubles" - a time of violent and deadly sectarian violence between the Catholic IRA and the Protestant paramilitaries and the British Army. I thought the film, directed by Kari Skogland, successfully captured the sense of chaos that existed in Belfast at the time, as violence and killing simply became a part of the daily life of the city. The movie is based on the biography of Martin McGartland, a young man who joined the IRA and began to rise through its ranks, while also serving as a British informant. The title (of both the book and the movie) refers to the number of lives he believed he saved by being an informant. The sense of chaos which permeates the film revolves around McGartland. It's seen in his early life of petty crime; in his growing involvement with the IRA which causes moral qualms to rise within him; in his work as an informant, putting his life and the lives of those around him in danger; in his increasingly complicated family life - a girlfriend and a child, with a second child on the way. His life spiralled out of control from the moment he took the oath of loyalty to the IRA.Jim Sturgess played McGartland and I thought was very convincing in the role, while Ben Kingsley also worked as "Fergus" - his main contact with the British authorities. Fergus was also an intriguing character - a man who seemed to have little life except his work for British intelligence, but who developed a fondness for and a loyalty to McGartland. The performances made for a compelling story.The movie starts a bit slowly, offering through narration a bit of historical background to "The Troubles" - not the most exciting way to open a movie, but probably necessary to have everything in context without needlessly prolonging the movie by having to portray the history. Once it picks up, though, it's compelling viewing, and offers what I thought was a good look into the tactics of the IRA - especially its willingness to torture those who it felt had betrayed them. Unlike some movies, it's not at all sympathetic to the IRA, and to me at least made clear that they were not the "freedom fighters" their apologists made (and still sometimes make) them out to be. They were thugs and murderers and terrorists - as ruthless at times toward the people of the parts of Belfast that were under their "protection" as local law and order broke down as they were to the British. Those who want to continue to glorify the IRA as anything other than thugs and murderers and terrorists should really watch this and do some research to learn what they're glorifying and defending. True - the movie is one sided. I'm not suggesting that the Protestant paramilitaries were much better. But it's not a bad idea, I think, to have a movie that portrays the IRA in a realistic light, rather than in the noble light often shone on them.It's worth noting that McGartland himself didn't like the film and disavowed it. He said "the movie is about as far from reality as Earth is from Pluto," or something like that. If you know the story, you realize that right off, as you wonder about the bewildering and inexplicable decision to have McGartland being shot six times by an IRA gunman - but in Canada rather than in England, where the incident actually happened. The movie was partly funded by Canadian companies - but was that a reason to erroneously (dishonestly, in fact) make Canada the site of the shooting? I just couldn't figure that decision out. There are other incidents that are, if not fictional, then certainly exaggerated - but I can accept those as a part of movie-making. I think there's enough truth in this to make it honest to say that it's "based on" a true story.The other thing that might put some viewers off are the heavy Irish accents. I found the accents hard to understand for a while, although as the movie progressed I must have gotten used to them, because it started to seem easier. Still, even if you have trouble following every word of the dialogue, you can pick up the basics of the storyline just from watching. I found it a compelling movie. (8/10)

This was finally shown on television - and was recommended as 'horrifically violent' - which it is. The bottom line is that he British persuade a teenager to inform on his ( freedom-loving ) or murderous colleagues and he turns to his task with enthusiasmI found the tension unbearable - having only lived thro a London bombing season which is nothing like the 'real thing'. Our Hero gets thro a road block by ringing his sister and the other fellow should know that he had no sister. Such small slips can lead to much greater breaks, and the plot is littered with them - leading to the suspense - will the IRA click our Hero is in fact no hero ?Various scenes seem unlikely but people have to realise it is a film and not a slice of real life. The torture ( IRA debrief ) scenes are horrifically graphic and presumably the IRA never learnt that rip off enough finger nails and the rippee will end up confessing to anything. None of the other reviewers seem to have wondered if people can be recognised, and whether the subplots were true - specifically if smaller fish ( our hero ) were sacrificed to save the identity of much bigger fish. I thought Delours Price got a decent look in ....The chief interrogator ( torturer ) was in real life unmasked as a British agent and the latter part of the film is devoted to the dastardly plan of flushing our hero down the John to save the identity of the torturer. Real life Freddie Scappaticci: see his interesting wiki entry. That accounts for the British MI5 man saying to the torturer at the very end let us call him Scappaticci - for chrissakes you are meant to have killed him by now ....I thought the hospital scenes OK - one point in real time the Belfast ITU was sprayed ( inside ) with machine gun fire so perhaps they were a tad underplayedso all in all - very watchable in a horrified - "did they, did we really do that?" sort of way ....

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 endThe 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