Review – Beirut is a traditional political thriller (but not much more)

Why isn’t Jon Hamm one of Hollywood’s biggest actors? The Mad Men star has been in his share of leading roles (2014’s Million Dollar Arm), but in general has struggled to land the sort of roles that propel actors to the upper tiers of mainstream Hollywood success.

Beirut seems to be an attempt to correct that lack of recognition with the sort of prestige, old-school political thriller that once immediately defined its stars as “serious” actors. Written and produced by The Bourne Trilogy‘s Tony Gilroy, the film stars Hamm as Mason Skiles, a former U.S. diplomat in Beirut who left the country following the death of his wife during a terrorist attack.

The year is now 1982 and Skiles is working as a labour negotiator in the American Midwest, as far from the exotic locales of his former position as one is ever likely to get. A functioning alcoholic, Skiles is lured back to Beirut under the pretense of filling in for a last-minute speaking engagement. Once there, he is approached by CIA agent Sandy Crowder (Rosamund Pike) who explains that he is actually there to help the agency release an old friend of Skiles’ who has been kidnapped by a local group.

What follows is a tense back-and-forth as Skiles tries to free his old friend from the clutches of the kidnappers while a civil war is raging around them. On top of the constant threat of violence, Skiles has to contend with layer upon layer of bureaucratic and political intrigue, with enough double crossings to keep your head spinning until the finale, which manages to successfully weave together all of the seemingly disparate elements into a conclusion that actually makes sense.

Director Brad Anderson keeps the action moving, giving Hamm the chance to strut his action-star chops as he runs through the crowded streets of “Beirut” (actually Morocco). Anderson manages the tricky balance of inserting action beats into a movie that could solely consist of shouty talking heads scenes, with mostly successful results. The film moves fast enough that it’s almost easy to overlook a number of glaring faults, like the distinct lack of actual Lebanese actors in a movie ostensibly based on that country’s civil war.

For a film titled Beirut, the politics here are actually fairly non-committal, embracing the sort of “everyone’s at fault” policy that is sure to aggravate all sides of this complex conflict. If Beirut has any political stance, it’s that all the involved parties have contributed in some way to the morass that Lebanon (and by extension the entire surrounding region) finds itself in today. That determination may not fly with today’s audiences, but makes some sense given that Gilroy’s script has been kicking around since the early 90’s, a cinematic era not exactly defined by its nuanced view of the conflict in the middle east.

A perfect Sunday afternoon movie, Beirut is an exciting espionage thriller that tackles an incredibly complex issue without ever demanding too much from its audience. It’s an enjoyable enough diversion that really relies on Hamm’s charisma to elevate it from a run-of-the-mill period thriller, and hopefully does well enough to secure Hamm some stronger roles going forward. It’s not exactly Syriana, but then again, it’s not Homeland either.