Why Ben Affleck’s Animals Divides Critics and Fans

Kidnapping, campaign cash, and secrets that won’t stay buried: Ben Affleck’s Animals lands like a splash of cold water and refuses to warm up the room.

The film follows Mark Kimball, a mayoral hopeful in Los Angeles, whose son is abducted. With only hours to gather a ransom and most of the family fortune already sunk into the campaign, the Kimballs are forced into escalating, risky choices that peel back layers of their public and private lives. Affleck directs and stars, working from a script he co-wrote with Connor O'McIntyre and Billy Ray. The cast includes Kerry Washington, Gillian Anderson, Adriana Paz, Luis Gerardo Méndez and Steven Yeun, all of whom lend weight to moments that sometimes beg for stronger scaffolding.

Critics haven’t agreed on whether that scaffolding exists. On Rotten Tomatoes, Animals sits at 45 percent from 22 reviews. Metacritic’s aggregate is harsher: 31 out of 100 based on 11 critiques. Those numbers tell part of the story; the rest is in the margins, in the lines critics underline and the scenes they say fall flat.

Some reviewers find much to admire. IGN’s Jim Vejvoda awards an 80/100 and praises Affleck’s taut direction, arguing the film sustains moral tension even when it slips into familiar thriller beats. “The choices the characters face are rarely good ones,” Vejvoda writes, “and that constant ethical grind keeps the drama alive.” Short, precise filmmaking, he suggests, is at play.

Others are less forgiving. The Daily Beast’s Nick Schager (55/100) sees a surface-level clash between privilege and desperation that never deepens. The Hollywood Reporter’s David Rooney (50/100) calls the actors compelling company—handsome, watchable performers—but thinks the central theme of the animal inside us is sketched rather than excavated. IndieWire’s Ryan Lattanzio (42/100) goes further, describing Animals as stranded between formats: episodic in feel but not satisfying as either a series or a feature film.

That sense of competing ideas is a recurring critique. Collider’s Robert Brian Taylor (40/100) notes a crowded film that juggles too many concepts and characters who barely register. The Guardian’s Jesse Hassenger (40/100) accuses the movie of coasting on an easy charm that avoids asking why it exists in the first place. Slashfilm’s Chris Evangelista accepts the film’s breakneck pace but calls it unimaginative.

At the harsher end of the scale, RogerEbert.com’s Brian Tallerico (25/100) declares Animals possibly Affleck’s weakest directorial outing, arguing repeated rewrites have drained the screenplay of focus and suspense. Screen Rant’s Simon Gallagher (20/100) labels it bland and tiresome; New York Magazine’s Bilge Ebiri (10/100) finds the film ragged from start to finish, suggesting a lost or abandoned ending might explain its narrative missteps.

Where does that leave the viewer? Expect strong performances and a premise that hooks quickly. Expect also a film that often trades depth for momentum, ideas for momentum, and emotional payoff for momentum. The debate isn't just about quality; it's about what kind of cinematic risk you find worthwhile.

Animals is a provocative misfire: intriguing in intent, uneven in execution.

If you follow Affleck—either for his acting, his directing, or both—this will be a must-see for conversation. If you come for a tightly sealed thriller, you may leave feeling the lid never quite fit. Watch it, judge for yourself, and then tell someone what you saw.