Ben Affleck has finally returned to thriller film-making, 14 years after the excellent Argo further cemented his name as one of the great new directors of the 2010s. Since then, he’s been surprisingly quiet, with only the disappointing Live By The Night and Air, which were received very differently. <em>Animals</em> is a little closer to the former than the latter in quality.

Animals is essentially a marriage of neo-noir tropes and the foundation of a political thriller, in which Affleck’s mayoral candidate faces a moral reckoning when his son is kidnapped as his campaign reaches a key point, and he’s forced to take less-than-conventionally legal measures to save him. The kidnapping brings up old ghosts, a hidden family schism, and class privilege, and on paper it should be very interesting.

Oddly, Animals doesn’t really deliver on its promise, thanks to a defiant, unconventional approach to storytelling that leaves frustrating unresolved questions and half-baked ideas that aren’t clearly spelled out. In other words, it’s the kind of movie that might seem straightforward, but in its self-conscious vagueness, requires a deep dive.

What Happens In Animals Ending

Affleck uses Kimball’s political career – and his apparent moral integrity – as the springboard to try and shake up the usual kidnapping thriller formula. His power and wealth give him access to a political fixer, Dayle – played with uncharacteristically robotic delivery by Gillian Anderson – who will make problems go away that even the political parties shy away from.

She facilitates the ransom money in exchange for a fee and literally no narrative inquisition, either from Kimball or Affleck as the writer, and offers Kimball a Faustian bargain: she can make the kidnappers disappear entirely, without impacting his political career or freedom, in exchange for double her fee. After searching his morals, Kimball decides he wants the kidnappers dead, despite the fact that they didn’t actually kidnap his son – they took the son of the family’s Mexican nanny (Adriana Paz).

Why Kimball Decides To Kill The Kidnappers

Kimball’s motivation is not spelled out particularly loudly, but there’s a big hint, as Animals also reveals that his wife (Scandal‘s Kerry Washington) is having an affair (with Ray Fisher’s undernourished teacher). He discovers this just as the fixer offers her deadly solution and – seemingly emasculated – seeks to regain some control of his life by doing what he believes is right. Ignoring the fact that Dayle has talked at him endlessly about leverage, and he’ll be exposing himself to a major vulnerability.

In the climax, Kimball takes the ransom to the agreed meeting place, double-crosses the kidnappers thanks to Dayle’s driver/hitman, which goes badly because her assumption that there are two kidnappers (based solely on vibes at this point) is wrong. The third, largest kidnapper then kills the driver, the fixer (who charges into the scene without checking for clearance), and threatens to kill Kimball and the child before the child’s father turns up and saves the day by killing him from an improbable distance.

Kimball then cleans up the scene by apparently hiding the bodies except for one and concocting the fake story that the kidnapped child’s illegal immigrant father was the one who went to make the drop thanks to money Kimball donated, and Kimball killed the kidnapper when he realized the plan was to kill both child and father. That exonerates the father, who would have gone to prison for possessing a gun as an illegal immigrant, gets Kimball a slap on the wrist, and a flash forward to a year later reveals he won the election and intends to clean up Los Angeles.

Who Actually Kidnapped Denny Kimball?

Traditionally, an old-school adult thriller like Animals would either show the perspective of the kidnappers (as Ransom does) or reveal that the kidnappers were part of the victim’s world. There’s even a point very early into the ordeal where Steven Yeun’s Sam says in “most cases” the kidnapper is someone from the victim’s household. Animals then gently throws in some ideas about who could have been behind the crime without ever really interrogating them.

Could it have been Sam? He seems quick to suggest it’s a scam or a test of fortitude by political opponents. Could it have been Ron, Ray Fisher’s cheating husband who is having an affair with Abigail Kimball? Maybe his disgruntled wife? How about the fixer, who is suspiciously quick to come up with $7 million and who offers to kill the kidnappers stunningly quickly? Could it have been extortion all along? Nope, not one of those fairly reasonable ideas is the truth.

In reality, the identity of the kidnappers doesn’t actually matter: brief flashes of the lead kidnapper reveal they seemingly once worked for or owned a small business that was forced to close because of Kimball’s work as a lawyer and activist. So we’re to believe that they’re nobodies: there’s no big twist, and when the kidnapper is unmasked, it’s not someone famous or notable from appearing elsewhere in the movie.

So why does Animals do this? It’s frustrating but it comes down to what Dayle says about leverage and impact of one’s actions. She dangles murder of kidnappers over Kimball as her Faustian bargain but warns of consequences of leverage: her part in things will be protected by her evidence of his involvement. Kimball weighs up potential cost of his choice: he could end up in prison, his adulterous wife could leave him and use knowledge of killings against him, his political career could be ruined…

It seems that whole point of kidnapping is that it’s also a result of what Kimball did. In case of his legal work outcome was presented as triumph of his career and part of why he ascended so quickly. In reality though it ruined people’s lives to point they took dramatic action as revenge. It’s not particularly eloquent point but commentary is on cause and effect rather than personal prejudices.

Everything Else Animals Fails To Answer (& Why It Doesn’t Bother)

Animals isn’t really a mystery box thriller: it doesn’t revel in its grand reveal and instead seems happy to avoid offering too many satisfying conclusions along way to giving Kimball his happy ending. As a result it also leaves some things unanswered and introduces some major issues with logic of story. The kidnappers not being clearly explained is problem for instance because there’s no suggestion how they were able plan crime. It’s presented simultaneously as intricately orchestrated and opportunistic.

Dayle is also total mystery. Who she actually is what organization she works for how she has access such major capital… All remain unanswered in service making her feel like mythological figure (like Quentin Tarantino’s Wolf played by Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction). Her motivations are also unclear beyond money quite how Sam came be aware her as campaign manager for independent mayoral candidate equally so. Are all aspiring political power makers given card shady underground concierge figures? Am I merely imagining something interesting place movie’s complete lack believable build up Deep State black ops world? Possibly.

She’s also not great at her job: she tells Kimball there are probably two kidnappers because she feels it her gut then ends up dead because a) she got that wrong b) she charges into battlefield without checking with hitman driver type he managed take out target. Apparently nobody has any means communicate long distance they could use during complex mission take out criminals.

Also where did $7 million come from why was just fine for Kimball give Ramon rebuild life Mexico? Are we to believe Dayle actually just worked alone could still access such massive amounts money middle night? To be honest all final sequence where Kimball reveals he was one shot kidnappers makes little sense: are we to believe police just accepted everything? They didn’t further investigate Dayle’s burnt out car? Nonsense.

And then there’s question kidnappers Dayle her sidekick bodies. What exactly did Kimball Ramon do with them? There’s brief mention area LA chosen drop point identified because low police presence but Kimball’s story zeroed focus. Why didn’t bodies turn up? Why weren’t they then easily linked back Kimball? Dayle literally on security system’s video feed. In offering no suitable answer, Animals opens itself up scrutiny inevitably criticism.

What The Final Shot Of Animals Means

The point about police accepting Kimball’s story with no friction is actually an important one that rather inelegantly underlines one of biggest points of Animals‘ ending. It’s movie as much about privilege as it is about kidnapping.

Kimball is powerful because of his position he has put target on back because activism political work even before became candidate but believes himself completely free enemies. He’s idealist who reveals he was able pay off staff member accused him sexual harassment (the movie again provides zero scrutiny truth here). And because power also has immediate access Dayle when believes Denny has been kidnapped.

$7 million? No problem You just need pay $1.4m top as her fee Also apparently not problem. Kimball’s financial position precarious because he self-funded campaign but recovering money will also be no issue when wins In stark contrast Cici nanny’s husband Ramon cannot get job including with Kimballs who see even being associated with illegal migrant ruinous public image fears cannot even report own son kidnapped case he’s deported The whole reason Cici Ramon exist appears confront Kimball with own privilege which never really goes into He does use privilege help though first offering pay ransom Hector then when drop turns bloody taking rap killing kidnapper.

Kimball gets slap wrist killing kidnapper holding firearm no serial number given community service order year still gets elected mayor using protection Latino migrant family (and willingness pay ransom) swing key Latino vote towards himself He ends up using Dayle’s idea leverage realize dream becoming mayor despite fact was inconvenience him just days before.

There’s strange sinister note how Animalsend: Kimball gets happy ending promises clean up LA but effectively corrupted himself process He decided kill kidnappers because emasculated hid several bodies torched car committed perjury aided abetted crime (movement $7m over border) used story manipulate populous Are we supposed believe shots him victory press tour end condemnation him? Or is success Ramon Abigail’s family being safe supposed evidence right people allowed do bad things greater good?

Animalsis streaming on Netflix now.