The Anthrax Attacks

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.

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.

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.

... 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.

I remember when these attacks happened in the shadow of 9/11 but I didn't follow the investigation. I found this documentary interestingly crafted with the characterizations of the main suspect in first person as opposed to a simple narration of events. I thought Clark Gregg did an excellent job in his depiction of Dr. Ivins. This documentary highlights the extreme actions the FBI takes, in the absence of hard evidence, to manipulate the court of public opinion (with the help of a complicit media) to try, convict, and in this case, execute, a suspect in which they are singularly focused to the exclusion of all others. It seems this is standard practice for the FBI as we are still seeing this modus operandi in the present day. I felt the postal employees (not the ones who died) from the former Brentwood processing center were not part of the story. Their claims of anthrax exposure seemed contrived and the female who showed up at the press conference badgering the postal inspector for a meeting appeared, to me, as an effort to parlay financial gain in the face of national tragedy. The fellow that appeared to emotionally breakdown during the interview didn't shed any actual tears. I looked up the cast to verify that he was an actual post employee and not an actor. I believe the story would have been better told if they had included more family members of the actual postal employees who died. Overall, I don't think this documentary will convince anyone of Dr. Ivins' guilt. If anything, it will prove that the relentless badgering and targeted public smearing of a private individual by the FBI will eventually degrade that individual's mental health. It's important to remember that Ivins was not charged or convicted and is, therefore, presumed innocent by law. The FBI, through their reckless behavior, should be held accountable for Ivin's suicide.

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.

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.

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.