Beirut

Beirut

Starring Jon Hamm, Rosamund Pike, Dean Norris, Shea Whigham

Directed by Brad Anderson

The Story:
Ten years after the murder of his wife, Mason Skiles (Jon Hamm) returns to Beirut at the behest of CIA field agent Sandy Crowder (Rosamund Pike), who informs him that his old friend Cal (Mark Pellegrino) has been kidnapped by a Militia of Islamic Liberation, and he's been chosen to broker a trade.  The leader of the terrorist group, Karim (Idir Chender), demands Cal's life for the life of his brother, but Mason can't locate him.  As time begins to run out, he pulls out all the stops to find the brother and save his friend before he becomes the next casualty of the Lebanese Civil War.

The Synopsis:
Jon Hamm was a television icon, starring as the always debonair Don Draper in the AMC series "Mad Men," winning two Golden Globes for his performance.  However, his transition to the big screen hasn't been as stellar.  Apart from decent secondary character work in "The Town" and "Baby Driver," he hasn't managed to hold his own (films like "Million Dollar Arm" became invisible almost immediately), but "Beirut" is a film where he's able to truly shine and showcase some serious acting chops - unfortunately it's the wrong film to do that, as the entirety of the film is pretty much an insult to the Lebanese people.

There was a huge backlash after the trailer was released, due in large part to the fact that the film - which obviously is supposed to take place in Beirut - was filmed in Morocco.  Then there's the fact that the film predominately features actors who aren't of Lebanese descent, and then there's the music that's so generic and stereotypical that it infuriated those of Lebanese ancestry.  Still, a trailer is nothing more than a vehicle to whet an appetite, but after viewing the film I could tell that the filmmakers (director Brad Anderson - "Stonehearst Asylum," and writer Tony Gilroy - "The Great Wall") probably never spent a second in the titular town.  Not to mention that the film was as bare-bones as it could get, with a totally obvious ending and a entire runtime that's way over its expiration date.  Plain and simple: it was boring.

The film follows a predictable pattern from the very first moments.  Beirut in 1972, Mason is a U.S. diplomat who is happily married and about to adopt a refugee Palestinian boy.  Then we learn the boy's brother is a known terrorist, and of course it's at that precise moment that his brother returns for him, resulting in the death of Mason's wife.

Ten years later, and Mason is now living in America, and going through the traditional grief patterns we see in films like this - a drunk, chain smoker, who lives in filthy hotel rooms.  It's at this moment he's picked up by the CIA to broker a deal to release his friend whom he hasn't seen in ten years who was taken captive by a Lebanese terrorist group.  Guess who the leader of the group is?  That's right, it's Conan O'Brien...I mean the kid who Mason wanted to adopt ten years earlier.  This is supposed to add a new sense of weight to the story, but Mason seems to hold no feelings whatsoever for the young man anymore - he just wants his friend back.

Cue streets ravaged with war, moaning chants, and sepia-style cinematography you've seen from every film centering on a Middle Eastern country.  Then there's talking - a whole lot of talking.  Talking, talking, talking.  Mostly talking about the same things.  Saving Cal, killing the terrorists, America wins, yadda yadda yadda.  I found myself zoning out several times throughout, and then realizing I didn't miss a beat.

Finally there's the supposed twist that, again, you've seen in every Middle Eastern film before.  Who really are the bad guys?  What are the Americans hiding?  Where did I put my cheese?  All these questions are easily answered (except for the cheese part, still looking for it) in such a simplistic way - yet it's obvious Gilroy thinks he's the most intelligent person in the room.  All of this leads to the most probable conclusion, one that is supposed to be fraught with tension and dread, but all I thought was "thank God, it's finally almost over."

Still, for all its faults, Jon Hamm does get a decent storyline to tell.  Yes, he goes through the traditional tropes of sadness, but he also showcases more than just those generic moments.  This is his best work as a leading man since "Mad Men," and that says a lot.  Rosamund Pike also fares well as the CIA field agent, even though she as well sometimes stumbles over the pitfalls of generic writing (being the only female predominately featured will give you an idea as to her real purpose in the film).  She delivers a serious performance that she's best known for, and proving this is her type of film.

The Summary:
Bland, boring, and predictable, "Beirut" fails to use the true talent of Jon Hamm to his fullest potential, which may be one of the film's biggest faults.

The Score: C-