Ben Affleck's new film, 'Animals', is now streaming on Netflix, but it has not been well received by critics. Described as a catastrophe, the film attempts to blend a kidnapping thriller with political and domestic drama, yet it falls flat in execution.

In 'Animals', Affleck plays Mark Kimball, a wealthy attorney running for mayor of Los Angeles, who faces a crisis when he receives a call about his son being kidnapped. However, the plot quickly unravels as Mark realizes he has no money to pay the ransom, having invested everything in his campaign. With the help of a fixer played by Gillian Anderson, he scrambles to find the ransom, only to discover that the kidnapped child is not his son, but that of a poorer family.

The film attempts to explore themes of privilege, ambition, and moral dilemmas, but the execution is criticized for its poor writing and lack of depth. Critics note that Affleck's performance lacks the necessary emotional resonance, often feeling like an actor merely going through the motions rather than embodying a character in distress. Key plot points, such as Mark's wife's affair, are introduced but not sufficiently developed, leaving viewers feeling disconnected from the narrative.

Despite its aspirations, 'Animals' fails to capture the complexity of its source material, Akira Kurosawa's 'High and Low'. The film's chaotic structure and predictable ending lead to a lackluster viewing experience, prompting questions about what went wrong in its production. Critics lament that the film could have been a poignant commentary on class and power dynamics, especially within the context of a high-stakes political campaign, but instead, it becomes a muddled and unengaging story.

Overall, 'Animals' is a disappointing addition to Affleck's directorial portfolio, especially following the success of his previous film, 'Air'. While there are moments of potential, they are overshadowed by the film's numerous shortcomings, leaving audiences yearning for a more coherent and impactful narrative.