“Beirut” isn’t “Under Fire”. While watching the movie, I had to draw comparisons between movies. They felt similar, yet one actually might’ve been timely in 1983. As of now, “Beirut” feels like the lesser work of a rather talent cadre of actors, writers and director. Jon Hamm is great and so is Rosamund Pike. I love Brad Anderson’s movies and Tony Gilroy is a miracle writer. So, why did this movie play like something that would have trouble getting made for basic cable in the 1990s?
Jon Hamm is a serious man who become a shell of himself after tragedy. Now, his buddy got kidnapped and he has to make a corrupt deal with shadowy spies. If you had 1997 era Nicole Kidman yelling at people to take the shot, this would literally be every spy thriller I’ve seen in the last 21 years. What makes this film feel like such a betrayal is realizing that Jon Hamm got wasted with a Tony Gilroy script. That’s not to put the blame on the direction, but to highlight what was lost.
Did we need a major surprise? Not really. If they went that way, then it would make a boring film feel stupid. Beirut has no reason to be this awful and it irks me. Sadly, it’s going to pass from theaters rather quick. Will it get a second life on home video? Probably not. But, I guess this one will be fun for the Jon Hamm completists.
- 1 hr and 49 minutes
- Bleecker Street