The thriller "Animals" directed by Ben Affleck is quite disappointing The cast also includes Kerry Washington, Gillian Anderson and Steven Yeun
There is a reason why Ben Affleck's new film, in which he serves as both director and lead actor, is titled Animals. It's a subtext that isn't even all that subtle, addressing people and their primal instincts, as well as what triggers them. First and foremost, it is the instinct for protection that kicks in when an animal — or a human — senses danger. It is what has driven us forward as a species, what compels us to take care of ourselves and our families, and it is one of the principles that most closely unites the animal kingdom with that of humans, where it is then the capacity for reasoned judgment that sets us apart from beasts.
The meaning the film seeks to convey from the outset is loftier than its actual exploration of human nature. This makes the pretentiousness of the Netflix title all the more apparent — and not only because at a certain point Affleck's character declares that he one day hopes to become President of the United States. In the film, the star plays Mark Kimball, a candidate for mayor of Los Angeles whose son is kidnapped, forcing him to comply with a ransom demand in order to see the boy alive again. The sum of 7 million dollars is demanded of the man and his wife to bring their son home — a situation in which Mark must act not only as a father, but also as a political figure, calculating which move will best allow him to achieve his goal.
What is Animals, Ben Affleck's new Netflix film, about?
Without giving too much away about a plot whose twists form the thematic foundation upon which its central reflection is built, Animals — with a screenplay written by Connor O. McIntyre and Billy Ray alongside Ben Affleck — puts into play questions of appearances and personal ideals, of the principles one professes versus what one actually does for self-serving ends. Mark is just a few votes short of winning the election. There is still an audience he can count on: the Latino community, whose support could carry him to victory. In this dramatic situation, one element becomes crucial for the man — how to turn a dangerous and harrowing event to his advantage, exploiting people in order to achieve his own ends.
Animals certainly pushes on the theme of discrimination and how politics so often exploits it for its own benefit rather than genuinely caring about the well-being of every citizen, regardless of their background. Yet the story then piles on far too many additional elements that are meant to make the heart of the matter feel weighty and challenging, but which are visibly deployed by the script in exactly the same way Mark's character operates — using the circumstances at hand to serve its own purposes. Both the film and its protagonist, in fact, make themselves look good by taking a social issue and wielding it with a dual objective: on one hand, to demonstrate awareness of the subject matter, and on the other, to push it to extremes and exploit it — in the case of the film — for entertainment purposes.
Why is Ben Affleck's Animals a disappointing film?
In between, everything but the kitchen sink. A marriage falling apart that rediscovers its spark in the least suitable of circumstances (the wife is played by Kerry Washington), a mysterious woman of power who can pull Mark out of his crisis (a wasted Gillian Anderson), and a criminal about whom we know absolutely nothing — not the source of his anger, nor, consequently, his motive — an anonymity that, by the time the ending arrives, one realises one couldn't care less about.
That Animals is a disappointing Netflix film matters little — it is Affleck's direction that is the greater source of regret. An actor who is also an auteur, one who has managed to make several commendable films, coming off the back of 2023's Air, which had been very well received (and earned two Golden Globe nominations). A result that Animals falls far short of matching — and no political strategy will be enough to make up for it.
