burntouthack I am baffled by the enormity of the error that features in the end titles of the film, where they refer to the peace process of, er, 2007, a whole decade out. It's so bizarre. Anyway, what can you do? I saw the film the day after finishing the book. The book was excellent, the guy a hero, and to be fair the film is fairly faithful. Jim Sturges is superb as ever, and I hope his ascendancy continues with some bigger roles as he's as good as Eddie Redmayne, Bendict et al. The film overall is a little underwhelming and didn't need to be two hours. Natalie Press v good as his girlfriend, Ben Kingsley does the most he can with a slightly nothingy role.

sddavis63 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)

oliverdearlove 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 ....

kosmasp 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.