Review: Netflix’s “Painkiller” Exposes the Painful Reality of OxyContin

Review: Netflix‘s OxyContin drama ‘Painkiller‘ is just painful

Introduction

In recent years, the opioid epidemic has taken a devastating toll on communities across the United States. Understandably, this crisis has become a subject of fascination for the entertainment industry, with several television series examining the role of Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin in fueling the epidemic. One such series is Netflix‘s limited series “Painkiller.” However, despite the important subject matter, “Painkiller” falls short in its execution and fails to deliver a meaningful exploration of the opioid crisis.

A Familiar Story

It is difficult not to draw comparisons between “Painkiller” and Hulu’s limited series “Dopesick,” which also focuses on the role of OxyContin in the opioid epidemic. Both series feature a similar cast of characters and explore the same narrative arc. However, where “Dopesick” succeeds in delivering a measured and affecting portrayal of the crisis, “Painkiller” falls flat.

A Missed Opportunity

One of the biggest issues with “Painkiller” is its choice to treat the subject matter as a magical realist farce. By incorporating fantasy sequences and the shouting ghosts of the Sackler family, the series fails to give the opioid crisis the gravitas it deserves. This hyper-stylized approach might work well for other stories, but when dealing with a topic that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and torn families apart, it is simply inappropriate.

A Lack of Gravitas

Perhaps the most damning criticism of “Painkiller” is its lack of a clear point of view. The series fails to take a strong stance on the crimes committed by companies like Purdue Pharma. Instead, it presents a confusing and disjointed narrative that deprives the audience of any emotional connection. The out-of-sequence storytelling hampers the viewer’s ability to fully engage with the story, resulting in a constant feeling of exhaustion while watching the series.

Character Development

Another area where “Painkiller” falls short is in its character development. While Matthew Broderick gives a decent performance as the villainous Dr. Richard Sackler, the character lacks depth and fails to elicit any meaningful emotional response from the audience. Taylor Kitsch, a talented actor, also struggles to make his character, Glen Kryger, relatable or sympathetic. Glen feels more like a symbol than a fully fleshed-out individual, making it difficult for viewers to truly care about his story.

Superficial Treatment

In contrast to “Dopesick,” which delves into the scientific and political factors behind the danger of OxyContin, “Painkiller” only scratches the surface. The series relies on flashy visuals and campy storytelling techniques to convey its message, resulting in a shallow and superficial treatment of a deeply complex issue. It fails to make the audience understand the true scope and gravity of the opioid crisis.

Conclusion

While it’s commendable to see attempts to shed light on the opioid crisis through television dramas, “Painkiller” ultimately misses the mark. The series fails to deliver the necessary gravitas, character development, and depth required to convey the magnitude of the issue at hand. Instead, it opts for a superficial and disjointed approach that undermines the seriousness of the opioid epidemic. If viewers are seeking a more compelling and thought-provoking examination of the crisis, they would be better served by watching “Dopesick” on Hulu, which delivers a harrowing and informative portrayal of the opioid epidemic.