The Anthrax Attacks: l'indagine sul killer dell'antrace

... 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 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.

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 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 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.