‘Animals’ Ending Explained: The Complex Aftermath of Mark Kimball’s Victory

Few thrillers punish their hero as quietly as ‘Animals’ does, which is why the ending leaves viewers searching for clarity. Directed by Ben Affleck, who also stars as Los Angeles mayoral candidate Mark Kimball, the film follows him and his wife Abigail, played by Kerry Washington, as they navigate a kidnapping crisis. What begins as a typical ransom scenario quickly evolves into something far more sinister.

The crux of the story revolves around a series of choices, an unexpected rescue, and a political win that feels hollow. The kidnappers demand $7 million for the safe return of the Kimballs’ son Denny, and the couple is prepared to do whatever it takes to save him. Here’s how the narrative unfolds.

The film’s most shocking twist occurs early on. Instead of Denny, the kidnappers have taken Hector, the son of Ramon, an undocumented worker involved with the Kimballs’ housekeeper, Cecilia.

The mix-up stems from a costume confusion. Cecilia took both boys to a festival, and due to their identical costumes, the kidnappers mistakenly identified Hector as the candidate’s son. This simple error sends the entire plot spiraling in a new direction.

This twist also shifts the focus of the film. Affleck aimed for a structural change where Mark recedes into the background while Ramon emerges as the central character, avoiding any gimmicky feel. Once this shift is recognized, the ending resonates with a different impact.

Introducing Dayle, played by Gillian Anderson, the fixer presents Mark with three options once it becomes clear that Hector is the one taken. Mark is desperate for her assistance, having drained their bank account for his campaign and unable to pay the ransom without her help.

The choice he makes is the most violent. Dayle suggests eliminating the kidnappers before they can escape with the money, and Mark ultimately consents. At the Los Angeles River, her gunman shoots two masked men, but a third kidnapper lurking in the shadows shoots Dayle and her associate.

Dayle’s final moments are chilling. She is left severely injured and dying, while Mark looks at her coldly before seizing her phone, which contains recordings of the entire ordeal. The film hints at her demise, yet it remains ambiguous whether Mark is responsible for her death.

Despite the narrative framing, Mark is not the hero of the river scene. Ramon, having overheard Mark’s intentions, follows him and kills the third kidnapper, ultimately saving both Mark and Hector.

Then comes the spin. Mark takes Dayle’s phone, disposes of the bodies, and publicly claims credit for shooting the abductor. With the recordings solely in his possession and no witnesses left to contest his story, he faces no challenges.

The political rewards are swift. He is hailed as a hero within the Latino community and wins the election by a substantial margin. This outcome is laced with irony, as his campaign manager had previously suggested that winning over this community could sway the election.

The kidnapping also forces uncomfortable truths to surface at home. Mark must confess that he depleted their bank account for the campaign, a revelation that hits hard for a couple who believed they were merely fighting to save their child.

Ultimately, the film does not provide a neat resolution. Mark and Abigail remain together after the crisis, but their union feels less like reconciliation and more like a mutual agreement to coexist with the aftermath of their choices.

The final note is intentionally disconcerting. Mark achieves his happy ending and vows to improve LA, yet he has compromised his integrity along the way. So, when a mayor takes credit for Ramon’s heroism, do you view Mark as a survivor of an unimaginable ordeal, or as precisely the type of politician the city should dread?