The Anthrax Attacks (2022) User Reviews

An interesting documentary, maybe a little long.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 17 September 2022]

I think everyone on the planet will remember the events of September 11th, but not everyone will remember these events, in the wake of the terrorist attacks, this felt like another.

It's a pretty interesting documentary, it's made a little differently, it features some interesting footage, some intriguing interviews, and some less than successful dramatisation scenes.

It's watchable, if a little long, I think instead of being 95 minutes long, it could have been 60, at times it did drag.

Quite informative, I had no idea what anthrax was essentially, and how it behaved, I just assumed it was a chemical weapon, so I learned a little.

It was quite shocking to see that The Postal Centre was kept open, actually pretty sickening, contrast that to The Govern building, the thought of it stuck in the back of my throat,

7/10.

This was LONG

[confidencegame · 5/10 · 10 September 2022]

The Anthrax Attacks is pretty average as far as Netflix documentaries go. It is long, fairly dragged out, sometimes tedious (in particular during the dramatized parts) documentary on The Anthrax Attacks that happened soon after the 9/11.

And despite its length, the documentary is really not that compelling, or even comprehensive. Main motive of the prime suspect, i.e. The anthrax vaccine program which rejuvenated after the attacks, is not even mentioned until the very end of the documentary. And even then it was like in one sentence.

Dramatized parts were overlong like the rest of the documentary and featured some mediocre acting with only a couple of exceptions. It really didn't do anything for me and the documentary would be better off without them.

This documentary proves the government...

[jldivelbiss · 7/10 · 16 September 2022]

... Is run by a bunch of incompetent idiots. The lead FBI agent is sure that they got the right guy - that after he died of suicide, instead of pursuing a post-humous grand jury indictment, they just destroy all the evidence and case files after it being the most expensive FBI investigation in history?! Ok. Idiots.

Great documentary given the context. The suspect seems like a good fit on paper in regards to being a strange guy BUT again the FBI couldn't prove he was their guy otherwise they would have arrested him at that very first interview. Also, lead guy, your smoking gun is a code book that the FBI threw out, seriously?! This investigation through and through was a joke. The FBI is a joke.

Decent Overview

[mattharv-36394 · 6/10 · 19 September 2022]

This documentary gives a decent overview of the case but should be supplemented with further reading if you want the full story. A bright spot was the focus on the postal employees and others effected by the attacks. The dive into reasoning and other important detail was kind of glanced over and condensed to a small footnote at the end. Again supplementing with further reading can flesh out the nitty gritty. Would have liked to see a deeper look into Dr Ivins possible motive that was only mentioned at the end. I would have also liked a closer look at the fbi investigation and a bit more of an explanation as to why the samples were destroyed. I assume it's a classic case of "we got our guy so let's close this book before more questions come up" but we will never know.

No tension or suspense

[cathycritter · 7/10 · 2 November 2022]

I know it's a documentary, but they telegraph who the perpetrator is so early on that there is zero tension or suspense or the feeling of a discovery unfolding. Also, the use of actors to portray the anthrax attacker and some others involved in the case, was a poor choice. They should have stuck to using actual footage and photos, along with interviews with real people involved in the case (at least they had those). The actor playing the attacker was just not very good- it was a very cartoonish portrayal. Interesting case though. Also no mention was made of using psychological profiling to catch the anthrax attacker. This seems to be a case that was absolutely suited to such a technique. Was this technique used and if so why didn't this documentary address it?

Important film but a dangerous time

[fischer_patrick · 6/10 · 9 February 2023]

This documentary does a decent job capturing the chaos and uncertainty of the weeks after 9/11 when America was besieged by Anthrax-laced mailings. These mailings resulted in only five deaths, but caused an untold level of fear. The film does a good job overviewing the lengthy and expensive FBI investigation into the case. Having lived through that era as a teenager it was interesting to watch this film as a piece of history now that we are over 20 years removed from the attacks. From the science of the pure anthrax spores to the cryptic notes included with the anthrax to the red herrings and missteps along the way, the film manages to cover an enormous amount of information in less than two hours. The film is a mix of news reel footage, interviews with those involved in the case, and re-enactments of key interactions with the main suspect. Clark Gregg of Marvel fame portrays Dr. Bruce Ivins who after a years long investigation was identified by the FBI as the perpetrator. Gregg gave a good performance. I don't normally like re-enactments in documentaries, but these scenes were written based directly on FBI interview notes of their conversations with Ivins as well as Ivins' own emails and writings. This gave the re-enactments a grounded and real feel. Overall this is an informative and easy to digest documentary. However, even after watching it, the viewer may feel less than convinced that the FBI got there man.

the USPS is still doing this...

[donaldricco · 7/10 · 25 July 2023]

Very interesting. As a current USPS letter carrier, I really understood the frustration of the employees interviewed for this documentary. I went through a similar experience at my office during the COVID-19 pandemic. (not AS scary as anthrax, but the bureaucratic foot dragging that left employees unnecessarily exposed) I felt so sad for my brothers and sisters that suffered during this awful time, and I wish they had their actual day in court!

The film did lag for me toward the end, when the FBI zeroed in on the perpetrator. And I was not at all surprised that it ended in controversy, with what appeared to be a bit of a government cover up. The U. S. Government, and the USPS, should be held much more accountable for their roles in this horrible event in our country's history!

Mixed bag

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 12 September 2022]

No pun intended - this is not about the Anthrax itself, but what or rather how the documentary is done. Mixing documentary and re-enacted events. With Clark Gregg of all people - I reckon on purpose, because he is quite likeable and not as shady (potentially?) as the character he is supposed to portray.

That mixed bags of goods ... well I am not sure it will work for most people watching this. The scenes that are being redone for dramatic effect ... well they don't entirely work. My sense and my understanding of them. Seeing how people have rated, it seems that others do agree with me though.

Interestingly done, but there are way better documentaries out there, you can spend your time with ... just saying.

Worth watching if you hadn't heard of this case

[tcavadino · 6/10 · 11 September 2022]

This documentary was good in highlighting the Anthrax issue as I had never heard of it before so now I have awareness. That being said, this is a long documentary which starts off really well, then feels like it is dragged out a lot. The acting for certain scenes or maybe even the whole film probably didn't need to be in there but I guess due to the doctors ending, this made sense instead of just the FBI agents monologuing. My main gripe with this film was that the apparent main motive for the doctor wasn't even revealed until the end of the film? A major clue left out seemed very silly, as I was on the fence as to whether he was guilty or not up to that point. I thought the postal employee interviews were really good and the film does leave you thinking about whether the doctor really did it at all.

Can't decide if it wants to be an investigative doc or a dramatized re-enactment

[kennbr · 4/10 · 12 September 2022]

I really don't like documentaries that are actually just dramatized reenactments of the events, and prefer investigative documentaries that rely solely on actual footage, audio and other media involving the event. This documentary tries to straddle both, but unfortunately tries to derive way too much substance from the re-enactment portion. Most of this has to do with one of the FBI's suspects, and at that point in the film the production really goes off the rails into being primarily an over-acted, dramatized re-enactment. I think they felt this was really necessary to better highlight the reasons why the FBI suspected this person, maybe feeling that simple narration of transcripts might have been too boring. However, as with all re-enactments, you then run into scenes like a deposition hearing between the FBI and the suspect that are so dramatized you don't know what was actually said and what was part of the script the production company provided.

I would have preferred if it had been a purely factual documentary, or at least if Netflix had made it more clear that it was so largely re-enacted so I could avoid it all together.

Intriguing investigative Tale

[Pairic · 8/10 · 11 September 2022]

The Anthrax Attacks: In the Shadow of 9/11 (2022): Documentary on Netflix with dramatised scenes. Shows how a US Postal Sorting Centre wasn't closed down for 10 days despite anthrax spores being present, resulting in deaths and illness but a US senate office building was closed immediately after a suspicious package was delivered (no anthrax was found). People became suspects because they were eccentric, some were hounded, FBI agents running press campaigns against them. Close surveillance resulted in them driving over one scientist's foot. But it's also an interesting tale of investigation and you find out more about anthrax and the attack campaign itself. I'll reveal no more. Written and Directed by Dan Krauss. 8/10.

NOT A DOCUMENTARY

[naturenerd · 1/10 · 16 September 2022]

This show mad me angry and upset, but for all the wrong reasons. It needs to decide if it's a documentary or a dramatization. It tries to be both, which is it's fatal flaw. Who in their right mind thought they could credibly story-tell by weaving back and forth between interviewing people who were actually involved in the investigation (documentary), with actors portraying other people who were also involved (drama)?! One of the main suspects is portrayed by an obviously well-recognized actor. But Either Old Christine's ex husband has been living a double life as a anthrax-handling scientist, or this the stupidest botch ever. It's not that the acting is bad, it's fine. But how is the documentary portion supposed to remain credible when it's interspersed with 100% fabricated scenes? It's as if the producers just decided to hire actors to portray any of the actual people involved in the investigation who didn't want to be either filmed/portrayed, and then proceeded as if they were the originals. Utterly horrible execution of what could have been a insightful documentary OR a decent episode of CSI.

A documentary that tries to be a dramatic thriller

[jinxedfrombirth · 1/10 · 9 September 2022]

I got so triggered by this that I had to create an account here to vent my frustration with the show/documentary.

First gripe out of the way: introducing characters by name on the screen but refuses to elaborate further. Wouldn't hurt to put a subtitle underneath showing what job the character was doing and thus how they became involved with the incidents. Although the production tries to explain that through subsequent interview questions and materials, such element does not give succinct and concise information for the audience.

Secondly, with all the readily available materials, resources, and production values that go into the documentary combined with an interesting topic in and off itself, the execution is comparable to a high school project. They, whoever produced and/or directed this, tried too hard to make it feel interesting and that definitely comes back to bite their a**es. Why the reenactment? That seems like total b.s. That serves to mask the apparent lack of thoughts that go into storyboarding and presentation of factual content.

Overall, the shock factor that the producer tries to chase after is nothing more than a pipe dream constructed from eating too much pot brownies. The subject itself, the never-before-seen interviews, the evidence, the reports, etc. Collected from the field already serve their purposes of hooking the audience into the documentary film. They have to some day come into term with "less is more".

Interesting hook, twisted plot, mediocre explanation, and falling conclusion.

[unpaid_movie_critic · 5/10 · 12 September 2022]

It was interesting to watch but the second half of the documentary like a domino or card house falling apart the whole concept of the movie. The documentary "The Anthrax Attacks" is about what happened after the September 11 attacks (September 11, 2001), but instead of showing us what happened, we see huge mistakes from FBI and people who has a lot of health problems. While you expecting continuation of the investigation, fairness towards post office workers, and some sort of answers, you will get a slap on your face from the government with statements like "Sorry but so many things is going on" or "We have done a great job" Well, kind of disappointing.

It reminded me about Dick Cheney (played by Christian Bale) words in movie "Vice" (2018) at the end of the movie, " I can feel your incriminations and your judgment, and I am fine with that. You want to be loved? Go be a movie star. The world is as you find it. You've gotta deal with that reality that there are monsters in this world. We saw 3,000 innocent people burned to death by those monsters, and yet you object when I refuse to kiss those monsters on the cheek and say "pretty please." You answer me this, what terrorist attack would you have let go forward so you wouldn't seem like a mean and nasty fella? I will not apologize for keeping your family safe. And I will not apologize for doing what needed to be done so that your loved ones could sleep peaceably at night. It has been my honor to be your servant. You chose me. And I did what you asked."

God bless America and may the victims of 9/11 rest in peace.

SO 80's TV Movie!

[jt-27284 · 4/10 · 12 October 2022]

I was looking forward to this, as 9 times out of 10 I thoroughly enjoy Netflix documentaries/series.

The subject matter is one I find interesting, however this was so poorly, and seemingly cheaply, executed I thought I had travelled back in time to my childhood memories of daytime TV movies of the 1980's.

4 stars is me being generous, as I did watch the whole thing, but you shouldn't finish watching something with a feeling of accomplishment! That's never a good sign!

Having re-enactments as part of a documentary can work well. Here it definitely does not.

The acting (particularly from the nation protagonist) is so wooden it felt like I were watching a live action Pinocchio. Seriously, I've seen Thunderbirds who are better actors.

I have to say I felt the overall presentation in a way trivialised what was something that should never have that effect in retrospect.

It really had a 'poor man's Breaking Bad' vibe to it and needless to say, I couldn't recommend this to anyone even if you are interested in the events. Definitely look elsewhere - here has to be something better than this.

A cheap piece of propaganda designed to erase history

[studioliohn · 1/10 · 22 April 2024]

The film fails to delve into the intricate historical backdrop surrounding the invasion of Iraq by the USA. One crucial element omitted is the Anthrax attacks, which were utilized as a pivotal justification by the George W. Bush administration to bolster public support for military intervention. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, fear and uncertainty gripped the nation, and the subsequent Anthrax attacks further fueled the atmosphere of apprehension, reinforcing the narrative of imminent threats from hostile entities.

Moreover, the film overlooks the infamous presentation by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations Security Council in February 2003. Powell's speech, which detailed Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, played a pivotal role in swaying international opinion in favor of military action. However, subsequent investigations revealed significant inaccuracies and distortions in the intelligence presented, raising questions about the validity of the rationale behind the invasion.

By disregarding these crucial historical events, the film neglects to shed light on the multifaceted consequences of the Iraq War. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were tragically lost, and the region was destabilized, leading to prolonged conflict and suffering. Ignoring these profound impacts does a disservice to the complexity of the situation and undermines the broader understanding of the invasion's ramifications.