Fifty Dead Men Walking

2009 "When you cross the line there's no going back."
6.8| 1h57m| R| en
Details

It's 1989, and in a Belfast torn apart by conflict and terrorism, petty criminal Marty McGartland is recruited by the British police to infiltrate the IRA. Guided by Special Forces officer 'Fergus', McGartland gains unparalleled insight into the organisation's dealings, providing his British handler with priceless, life-saving information. Based on a true story.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

SunnyHello Nice effects though.
Steineded How sad is this?
Ghoulumbe Better than most people think
Beanbioca As Good As It Gets
Mike-DD 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.
bob the moo 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.
jon_mont 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.
Felix Yaroshevsky 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.