I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Absolutely Brilliant!

The first must-see film of the year.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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 good, a little dry in places and possibly too long? -they had a lot of material to cover through. Amazing true story of a young street hustlers induction into the IRA and subsequent recruitment by the British Intelligence.Martin walks a fine line between the two, develops a friendship with his handler (Kingsley) and eventually gets sold out by the British. The last 45 minutes of this movie is flat out and makes up for the slower sections. I can't believe Martin made it through this alive (not really a spoiler since he wrote the biography this is based on) after so many attempts were made on his life and just how ruthless the IRA was. Kingsley (who is as always great) inadvertently becomes his personal bodyguard. The scene where Martin throws himself out the window after being tortured...jeez. Sweet and heartbreaking love story here too. Martin is still on the run today. 04.13 It was only after a couple days that I realized just how good this movie really is, as I'm still thinking about it. Might be worth reading the biography.

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.

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.