Is it an action film, a historical commentary or both?

For the action film, take three or four of the craziest events during 30 years of the Troubles, double the absurdity and tragedy of each event and then make all the events involve the same handful of individuals in absurd coincidences over the top shifting allegiances. Then for the cherry on top, make it all happen inside 24hrs! This is a good recipe for an action film, combined with the intrigue it might succeed as such.

But the film can't resist trying to be a commentary too, mixing in the mindless thrills of the action and overblown plot twists with attempts to portray an incredibly complex social, political and military situation into a series of action sequences. We have the cariccature of British army officer class. We have the selective portrayal (almost exclusively) of Unionist and British Army conduct as abusive, heartless and incompetent and a general observation that the British army is "the posh telling the thick to kill the poor".

A filmmaker is entitled to portray events as they see fit, and certainly arguments could be made about the folly of British military involvement in Northern Ireland (personally I think it was horrifically misjudged compared to the alternative of self determination). But there is a reason it is hard to think of films that successfullg blend non-stop action with insightful commentary. The somewhat blundering attempt to do so with a topic as heated as Northern Ireland left a bad taste in my mouth. If you aren't going to approach a really painful historical event with some reverence and restraint then don't do it at all (or choose another setting in which to tell your tale).

4/10