Am I watching the right film???

Rating: 1/10 (3 November 2016)

I'm utterly confused...after so many good reviews and the film being uploaded on Netflix (and Ben Affleck, enough said) I decided to watch it.
I'm not sure if I'm totally missing something, but there are so many plot holes in this movie. And I don't mean like tiny ones you can overlook, but supermassive black hole plothole types. I cannot actually believe it was so close to winning an Oscar. Absolutely shocking.
These are the things that just did not add up (I'm not a CSI, I just have a brain and logic):
1. Why did he not divorce her years ago?
2. The puddle of blood is a very neat little murder. A blow to the head (as the detectives think) would have left splatters everywhere.
3. Would Amy not have struggle against Nick? If she did struggle and Nick had murdered her, there would have been nail marks, bite marks, bruises on Nick's body, sure signs she struggled. This should be the first thing detectives look for on the husband/partner of someone who goes missing - not intimacy marks but wound marks.
4. If the bat thing was the murder weapon, there was no mention of Nick ever touching it!! They can't pin the murder on him unless they can prove the weapon was in his hand. There were no fingerprints left on it etc.
5. How did Amy sneak in all those gifts to Margo's house without her noticing? Also, does Margo just have her shed permanently empty and not visit it ever?
6. CSI could've very easily done some sort of DNA test for any skin residue etc left on those pants in Nick's office. This was left with no explanation.
7. How did no neighbours see a car/Amy's body being dragged out by Desi/Nick?
8. If Nick had done the murder, why would he not bother to properly burn the diary? Or just rip out some relevant pages? If Desi was guilty of kidnapping & raping, what reason does he have to burn the diary? How would Desi get to Margo's house? Does he even know Margo?
9. Nick has a crystal clear alibi with people who can vouch for him and no-one saw him at the scene.
10. Why did she bother making friends with those people at that motel or wherever she was when she should've been laying low? Also a totally rubbish identity change from Amy's part. Her 'intelligence' (or so a poorly executed representation of intelligence) should cover that, no?
11. At Desi's cabin, would there not have been CCTV footage of her coming into the property, completely without a fight, and a fair few days after her abduction? Would investigators not question where she was between that time?
12. What about the CCTV of Amy and Desi happily having dinner together, watching TV etc?
13. What about the CCTV footage of Amy going into the bathroom without any ligature marks on her wrists, to magically appear upon her exit of the bathroom?
14. Why would Amy not run out of the house or call the police when Desi leaves the house?
15. Why would there be no wounds from Desi's abuse on Amy's return?
16. There was no investigation on Desi's crime scene, they just took Amy's word for it.
17. Blunt force trauma wounds do not heal fast - Amy would've had the original 'kidnapping' wounds upon her return. Why did they not investigate this?
18. If the investigators actually did their job, they would've cleaned her up and looked for evidence to match her story to. Instead they sent her home, dripping head to toe in her kidnapper and rapists blood for the press to get some meaty footage. Logic.
19. If Nick is totally out of the suspect list, which he was by the end, there was nothing stopping him from divorcing her. Apart from maybe a bit of hate mail. Nothing would've kept me married to Amy after that.
I could go on, but I've already wasted enough time by watching this film. Also, Amy just needed to stop with that accent.