I see where the hype comes from, Affleck is becoming a significant force in directing films. But i still don't see why this movie won so much. The movie does have a good plot and a great ending but i felt like i was watching another Lionsgate low-budget action movie with the camera angles and cinematography. No offense to Lionsgate i understand your methods but come on Warner Bros., you have to sometimes grasp onto your productions. This movie had a phenomenal cast with a great performance by Ben Affleck in the leading role and great support with Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman and the underrated Tate Donovan. But no significant parts for a big name actress, i thought this could've improved the movie big time. Also the camera angles and cinematography were great for an adaptation. I feel like they played it safe (Affleck and his production crew). They could have easily made this the best film of the year, with a controversial plot already why treat it like an action-suspense-thriller-crime-stereotype? Simple camera angles that capture the story and the great actors. Nope. In my eyes this was not achieved. The cinematography was over par, the acting was just what i expected, nothing better nothing worse, the movie was mediocre. If you disagree then that's fine it's all based on opinion. If you are reading this because you haven't yet seen the movie then i suggest you watch it while cooking or while doing the laundry. This is the movie with the type plot where you don't have to give 100% attention to know what is going on. Also you can pause the movie and leave the house to get groceries or such then come back two hours later and still remember and pick up where you left off. It's just not that submerging or hooking. Sorry Lionsgate if i offended you by comparing your movies that go straight to Redbox with this movie... Which now rests in piece inside of a Redbox.