As much as I love a Ben Affleck thriller, Animals feels confusingly out of place with what I know an Affleck movie can be. Can I send it back?
Written by Madigan Will
I was genuinely so excited for Animals’ star-studded thriller, but unfortunately, this movie’s undercooked characters and flavorless plot feel like a Temu equivalent of what I was promised.
When the first trailer for Animals debuted, it arrived with a crazy ferocious bite. On first impressions, the movie’s feral subjects at play — Abigail (Kerry Washington, Scandal), Mark (Ben Affleck, Gone Girl), and Dayle (Gillian Anderson, The X Files) — all seemed well set up to be an intriguing lure trap for the morally murky waters of a solid political thriller.
Washington was walking in similar shadows to her championed Scandal character, Olivia Pope, in a protective mother role, and Affleck appeared to wear some of that morally smug, slightly dopey energy that made his husband character in Gone Girl so deliciously uncomfortable. Heck, they even sprinkled in an ethically messy marriage plot and a devilish Steven Yeun (Beef) for extra spice. It really felt like they knew their cinephile audience for this one (me).
So imagine my disorientation when Animals finally landed on Netflix, only to leave me wondering if I'd accidentally clicked on the wrong movie. Where was the drawn-out tension? The complicated character dynamics? It all felt a little more two-dimensional than I was expecting. Animals had all the pieces for a bold, juicy late-night watch, but alas, as the people often say, it’s the hope that kills you — and I fear, Animals, I have been slain.
Set in a modern-day Los Angeles, the plot in question follows Mark, a local political figure at the center of a big mayoral campaign, and his simultaneously crumbling marriage to his wife Abigail. There is a subtle chaos that is beginning to crumble inside this couple’s seemingly lavish home, and when their son is mysteriously kidnapped while trick-or-treating with a friend, their already complicated dynamic takes an even darker turn.
Desperate for help, they turn to Mark’s campaign manager, Sam (Yeun), who happens to know someone who could be the perfect phone call. But before he brings them in, Sam warns Mark and Abigail that once you verbally agree to this person’s services, you pay. They agree.
Any thriller fan who reads that plotline and sees that the movie is also directed by Affleck is bound to do a little "Oh, wait, I wanna see this." Which is exactly what I did. And that’s where I became the fool to this movie’s other secret, sinister plot that seemed more eager to mold itself based on viewership metrics than a good story. A focus that ended up giving me two hours of undercooked A-list characters, and dialogue that decorated a little too much of its cheesy corner. It’s probably going to make a lot of money.
It’s a watch that almost requires an email to the Netflix customer service department — because the Animals movie I was advertised was not what I got. Instead, what I have is a Temu equivalent that might have looked great in marketing, but just as quickly fell apart.
Affleck and Washington’s characters do bring a lot of great energy to the screen, with a tension between them that feels entertainingly volatile, but the more their relationship unfolds, the more this thread feels at odds with the main kidnapping plot — becoming a layer that feels like it is being thrown into the mix for algorithmic appeal. Animals seemed like it really wanted to lean into similar marital drama to Affleck’s Gone Girl, but the movie did nothing with it besides just putting it there for money-making fan service. Anderson’s pivotal character, Gayle, also felt a bit underexplored to me, as we never understand her relationship to Sam as much as I would have liked.
Every movie does have something to offer, though, no matter how much you have to dig, because god forbid a girl takes a risk and puts herself out there creatively.
That positive being that I did find a lot of enjoyment watching Luis Gerardo Méndez’s (Murder Mystery) Ramon. His unpredictability as a character made Ramon a fascinating arc, and he really was the beating heart of Animals. His role in the ending is also very ambiguous — leaving it up to the watcher to determine who was morally in the right here. Considering that we don’t end up knowing a lot more about him or the rest of the characters, it leaves a lot of room to insert yourself and is a stylish choice I actually really admired (in the end).
Similarly, while the dialogue is definitely cheesy, the more I kept hearing the lines, I realized that it was also very thematically appropriate at the same time — showing how ridiculous and unempathetic our "animal" instincts sound when a problem regards anyone but ourselves. I’m still not convinced this dialogue choice was purposeful, but for this viewer, I was able to find some sustenance in it.
There are some very brave theatrical jumps being taken in Animals, even if they don’t go as deep as they should have, but I do get scared that when we start making art based on what will get the most views, we will get more stuff like this. At the end of the day, the movie industry is a business, but I wish Animals was more of a story first, business second kind of formula. I am a fan of Affleck’s work, and holding him in such a high regard is probably why this movie didn’t land for me. Animals was such a bummer.
If you are a fan of Netflix thrillers, Luis Gerardo Méndez, or Gillian Anderson, at the very least, try Animals out in the name of cinema. Just be aware of the kind of viewership-driven storytelling you’re getting yourself into.
Animals is now streaming on Netflix.
Comments
Post a Comment