Cold Case: les meurtres au Tylenol

If you're into conspiracy theories and prefer mystery over truth, this one's for you.

But if you're more grounded in reality, you'll likely find this series built around sensationalism rather than substance. Despite revisiting one of America's most infamous unsolved cases, the show offers no real conclusion.

Honestly, I wish production companies like Netflix would include a clear disclosure when a documentary lacks a widely accepted conclusion. Otherwise, you might spend three hours watching just to realize you've learned nothing definitive. It's frustrating when a show builds so much tension without providing any real payoff or meaningful insight.

The docudrama skipped over all the other products that were tainted with cyanide, not connected with J&J. There were other states involved. Little mention was made of copycat possibilities, though this was known to have occurred. There was no mention of the investigations in these other suspects, including those involving Ted Kaczynski. Lab chemicals 500 feet from manufacturing seem like a large separation, not a small one. I would like to have seen a Netflix investigation into the retail and wholesale parts of the product chain. I don't recall if the murder in Kansas City was ever solved or if that was dropped. Certainly, the issue was left dangling, leaving the viewer to jump to conclusions.

I never cease to be amazed that there isn't a set of obvious guidelines and ground rules that documentary makers follow. One of those would be to keep the audience apprised of the timeline.

This documentary flips back and forth, mostly seemingly between 1982 and 1986, when two events occurred. Of course there was coverage after that and some from the present day. At times it was unclear what the timing was for a particular scene. This makes the story harder to follow for viewers. You can do better.

Apart from that, it was an interesting subject that I recall from my youth. I did not recall the resolution of it, such as it is, so it was interesting to get a more complete story although we still don't have the full story do we?

ABOUT MY REVIEWS:

I do not include a synopsis of the film/show -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.

My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating). For Lifetime Movies for Chicks (LMFC), drop the above scale by 3 notches. A 6 is excellent and 7 almost unattainable.

Cold Case: The Tylenol Murders is, without exaggeration, one of the most captivating and well-produced true crime documentaries I've seen in a long time. From the very first scene, it grabs you with a sense of dread and intrigue, and it doesn't let go. The story, already infamous in true crime circles, is presented with such nuance, care, and compelling structure that even if you think you know the case, you'll be surprised at how much you didn't know - and how much the mystery still lingers.

What sets this docuseries apart is its atmosphere. The direction leans into cinematic storytelling, with eerie visuals, chilling audio design, and a level of production quality that rivals high-end scripted thrillers. The tone is somber without being sensationalistic, which I really appreciated. This is a story about real people, real loss, and real consequences - and the filmmakers never forget that.

The pacing is excellent, slowly peeling back layers of the case while maintaining steady momentum. You're not just bombarded with dates and names; instead, you're drawn into the timeline and psychology of the case through thoughtful interviews and carefully curated archival footage. The series strikes a rare balance between investigative detail and emotional depth.

The interviews are among the strongest aspects of the series. Survivors, journalists, law enforcement, and even people loosely connected to the case all offer a wide range of perspectives. There's a deep respect in how these people are portrayed, and the documentary doesn't push a single narrative. Instead, it presents the information and lets the viewer draw conclusions, which to me is the mark of truly intelligent storytelling.

Also worth noting is how the series explores the broader implications of the case - not just the horror of the poisonings, but how it changed consumer safety, packaging regulations, and even the psychology of public trust. It situates the murders in a wider cultural context that makes the story feel even more relevant today, decades later.

Another strength is how the filmmakers deal with the unresolved nature of the case. There's no neat conclusion, no tidy ending - and yet, it never feels unsatisfying. On the contrary, it leans into that ambiguity in a way that's haunting and powerful. You leave the series feeling unsettled, not just because of what happened, but because of how little closure there really is - for the families, for the investigators, and for society at large.

This isn't just a recounting of a crime; it's an exploration of the ripple effects of fear, trauma, and unsolved justice. It respects your intelligence as a viewer, doesn't spoon-feed you theories, and trusts you to engage deeply with the material. For me, that's what elevates a documentary from good to unforgettable.

The strength of this true crime documentary is the random evil of the underlying crime and the bizarre machinations of its prime suspect. When the documentary hews close to the facts it's harrowing and fascinating. Unfortunately it too often falls into the trap of peddling a conspiracy. The conspiracy is presented in a way that makes it sound convincing; but pretty quickly it becomes apparent that not only does the conspiracy have no substance, there's no attempt to explain the mechanics of what's being alleged or counter the evidence that contradicts it. It's ultimately pretty tedious and it doesn't lead anywhere convincing.