Beirut

"I was a child during the Lebanese civil war, and I remember Israeli bombardments. So growing up, my view of Israel was completely negative. I'm not coming from a neutral place, but with time, I've had to re-examine my thinking." Ziad Doueiri (Lebanese director)

In the early '80's, Lebanon, and specifically Beirut, was a cauldron of conflicts that involved the interests of the US, the PLO, Israel, Syria, and Druze Militias. Director Brad Anderson and writer Tony Gilroy, reminding us of his fine work with Michael Clayton, carefully steer us through the city's growing rubble to chronicle the negotiations for a CIA spy to be exchanged for a rebel leader. Think The Year of Living Dangerously, Argo, and John le Carre for similar suspense.

Mason Skiles (Jon Hamm), a former US diplomat and current drunk, is called in as a skilled negotiator to bring back his friend, CIA agent Cal Riley (Mark Pellegrino), in a prisoner exchange. Hamm is particularly effective as a martini-soaked Cold War survivor whose role stateside after Lebanon as a labor negotiator has ennui written all over him.

Yet, this gig is fraught with danger because no one is a fool, and the smart players are too canny to be conned by a smooth talker like Mason. He has the good fortune to have his back guarded by cultural attaché Sandy Crowder (Rosamund Pike), an operative with multiple motives but a good bet to save the day.

Although little hope resides yet for a peace between Arabs and Israelis, the film succeeds in fleshing out the multiple points of view that have kept the Mideast a stew of ambitions and hatred. In the end, the film Beirut is an espionage thriller featuring an unBond, avowedly alcoholic hero. In that regard, it offers nothing new in this genre, just good action suspense and a modicum of insight.

The pace of this frenetic thriller set in the Lebanese Civil War is quick and smart with just enough character development to satisfy the harshest critics and enough turns in the negotiations to keep discerning audiences attentive and engaged. Be smart: see it.

As a movie this is a solid, dependable thriller with a really solid performance by Jon Hamm, as well as by a range of supporting players who turn in good, taunt performances. The one exception is Rosamund Pike whom is a great actor, but is ill-used. I suspect there were a number of scenes left on the editing floor.

This movie will be controversial because of its depictions of Beirut, as well as lack of agency of the Lebanese people. These criticisms are valid, but at the same time it is very hard for Hollywood, let alone a Western director and writer to get the right nuance and tension of the period AND make a successful movie. To the critics, you have a point, but this is a thriller, not a documentary.

If you are looking for a modern spy/espionage movie, this should be on your list. Plus I would love to see more Jon Hamm in these types of roles...well done.

Why are people so upset that it's not historically accurate? It never purported to be a history lesson. Snappy dialogue and a few twists and turns and Jon Hamm being Jon Hamm. I thought it was good.

One reviewer indicated this was not filmed in Beirut and the city wasn't in the condition as depicted. Not ever having been there I won't dispute but the images of the damages and treatment of individuals were horrifying and set the tone for the film. But, terrorist activities in the area has been well documented since recorded history. Jon Hamm was exceptional in the development of his character and Rosemary Pike may have been somewhat miscast but she managed her character fairly well. What was most disturbing was the probability of sacrificing one to maintain a precarious "peace" in the Region. And, of course, there is the issue of corruption by a U.S. official in another country (go figure). All in all it is a complex story with something of an unlikely conclusion but it was still extremely entertaining.

I quite like John Hamm. The man has this natural charm about him, he just seems like a nice, fun guy to the point that even when he's not great, he's still enjoyable. Beirut is a great example of that because the movie itself is kinda underwhelming but I still enjoyed him in it for the most part. Can't say the same for Pike. I don't know what it is but most of her performances annoy me and this wasn't an exception. That's really the story of Beirut though. There are times when it's good, clever and entertaining and then times when it's just soooo bad and the rest of the time it's just super generic. Nothing is ventured and nothing is really gained.

This is a tough one because I want to call it background noise but that doesn't work because there are things happening and it wouldn't work if you don't pay attention, but it's not really worth giving your attention either so it's stuck in this weird limbo space of only really being suitable for people that just want to watch it for some reason. Definitely not one I'd recommend paying any money on, if you can't at least check it out for free first then don't bother.