The new Netflix series “Painkiller” has a lot in common with Hulu’s “Dopesick” in that they both seek to expose the origin and spread of the opioid epidemic. Both lay blame at the feet of the drug’s manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, and more specifically the Sackler family who owned the company.
But for all the similarities, these two shows have a few significant differences. Ultimately, “Dopesick” gets to the heart of the story by investing more deeply in telling the stories of those affected by addiction while “Painkiller” spends a little too much time focusing on the wealth and excess of the Sacklers and Purdue drug reps who benefited from OxyContin’s popularity.
“Painkiller” starts off each episode by reminding viewers that the events depicted in the limited series are based on a true story but are ultimately fictionalized and may differ from the true story. This opening is especially impactful because the statement is read by mothers who all lost their children to opioid addiction. These participants clarify that “Painkiller” may not be 100% factual, but their pain certainly is.
“Painkiller” stars Matthew Broderick as Dr. Richard Sackler, the man running the company and the one responsible for bankrolling the creation of OxyContin and aggressively marketing the drug. Uzo Aduba plays Edie Flowers, a no-nonsense lawyer working for the U.S. attorney’s office in Roanoke. Flowers tries to bring a case against Purdue Pharma despite all odds being against her winning.
Taylor Kitsch plays Glen Kryger, a man whose addiction rips apart his family, which is another storyline that works well in the Netflix series. Watching Glen accept the prescription from his doctor after getting injured at work, and even participating in a promotional video for OxyContin, drives home the point that opioid addiction affects all kinds of people from all walks of life.
Hulu’s “Dopesick” premiered in 2021 and was based on the non-fiction book “Dopesick: Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America.” It was nominated for 14 Emmy Awards, with lead actor Michael Keaton winning the award for Outstanding Lead Actor. Keaton also won a Golden Globe for his portrayal of Dr. Samuel Finnix.
“Dopesick” opens in a Virginia mining town and follows several residents there who each experience the opioid crisis in a unique way. Series creators go in-depth with the characters, especially Dr. Finnix, who begins by prescribing OxyContin to residents before eventually succumbing to addiction himself.
Critics appreciated the drama as well, with Ed Cumming of The Independent giving the miniseries 5 out of 5 stars. He wrote of the series, “It aims to explore the scandal from the Sacklers down, opening with the development of the drug in the 1980s, to show how greedy bosses and avaricious sales reps were able to hijack the good intentions of doctors all over the country.”
The characters in “Dopesick” are well developed, which leaves the audience more invested in the often tragic outcomes. Meanwhile, “Painkiller” takes a more surface level approach and spends an inordinate amount of time focused on the ruthless ambition and wild parties the sales reps were having. “Painkiller” could have packed a bigger punch if it spent more time with Glen or additional characters who had their lives ripped apart by OxyContin addiction.
Kitsch said joining the cast was a “no-brainer” and that even though Glen’s story was fictional, he could see a similar version playing out in real life. “Man, it’s pretty close to me, this thing,” he told Netflix of the project. “Unfortunately, I think we’re all one degree away from someone who’s an addict.”
Both “Dopesick” and “Painkiller” attempt to paint Dr. Sackler as a portrait of pure evil. Actor Michael Stuhlbarg gave the Hulu series an eccentric, creepily detached version of the man behind the drug while Broderick’s version goes a little off the rails. In “Painkiller,” Dr. Sackler is often seen conferring visions of his deceased uncle and getting uncomfortably close to his dog, whose huge testicles are often on prominent display. He’s also portrayed as over-the-top evil to the point of absurdity.
The two shows both depict drug reps tasked with getting doctors to prescribe the new wonder drug and once again, “Dopesick” takes the edge with their approach. Will Poulter plays Purdue Pharma rep Billy Cutler. Watching him slowly realize his complicity in helping spread the issue packs a real emotional punch. The naive sales rep in “Painkiller” is played by West Duchovny, who does an acceptable job with the role but pales in comparison to the depth of Poulter’s character development.
Overall, “Dopesick” has a more serious approach to a weighty topic. The storytelling takes viewers on a journey through a regular small town and avoids delving into cliches, which “Painkiller” tends to do. The Netflix series, which premiered on August 10 of this year, currently has a 48% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 61% audience score.
Peter Travers of ABC News wrote of “Painkiller,” “Fictionalized takes on true stories are usually a problem for me. And ‘Painkiller,’ the six-part series streaming on Netflix, isn’t immune from condensing, compositing and exaggerating for so-called dramatic purposes. What feels real is the rage over the ongoing opioid crisis.”
“Painkiller’s mistake is to add a note of dark comedy to a story where no embellishment is required,” the Daily Telegraph review says.
User reviews were not much better.
“Awful, overly long TV drama based on truly tragic and harrowing events,” one person said, noting “not very many” details are true. “There’s a gripping and important story to be told here, of course, but 4.5 hours of fictionalized TV drama is a rubbish way to do it,” they continued.
“If you want to watch something that’s on the opioid epidemic, watch ‘Dopesick’ on Hulu…it’s a MILLION times better than this,” another person agreed.