Unabomber

For almost 17 years, from 1978 to 1995, someone mailed and planted homemade bombs across the United States. The attacks killed three people and injured 23 more, and for most of that time the FBI had almost nothing to go on. The case finally broke in 1995, when major newspapers published the bomber's long anti-technology manifesto and a man named David Kaczynski recognized his older brother's writing. In April 1996, agents arrested Ted Kaczynski at his remote cabin in Montana.

The story has been told many times, in books, documentaries and the 2017 series Manhunt: Unabomber. Now Netflix has a new take. Unabomber, a crime drama starring Jacob Tremblay as the young Kaczynski and Russell Crowe as a Harvard psychologist, arrived on Netflix on September 25, 2026. It quickly became one of the most-watched titles in the U.S., but critics have been far less enthusiastic. Here's what it's about and whether it's worth your time.

What it's about

Unabomber tells two stories at once.

The first is set in 1958. A teenage Ted Kaczynski, a gifted math student who started at Harvard at just 16, signs up for a series of psychological experiments run by the psychologist Henry Murray and his colleague Christiana Morgan. The experiments were real. Students were put through intense, deliberately harsh interrogations designed to attack their beliefs. In the film, this is where Kaczynski begins to pull away from people and turn against modern technology.

The second story is set in the 1990s. An FBI agent named Joanne Miller, played by Shailene Woodley, leads a team trying to identify the bomber, studying his manifesto for clues. The film follows the investigation up to the breakthrough moment, when David Kaczynski and his wife, Linda, notice that the manifesto sounds a lot like Ted's old letters.

The film moves back and forth between the two timelines, trying to connect what happened at Harvard with what came decades later.

The cast

Jacob Tremblay plays Kaczynski. Most viewers still know him as the little boy from Room and Wonder, so this is a big change. He's playing a brilliant, awkward, increasingly angry young man, and it's a role that asks a lot of him.

Russell Crowe plays Henry Murray, the Harvard psychologist behind the experiments. Annabelle Wallis plays Christiana Morgan, Murray's partner in the study. Shailene Woodley plays FBI agent Joanne Miller, and the supporting cast includes Alexander Ludwig, Steven Ogg, Marc Menchaca and Gus Halper.

The film was directed by Janus Metz Pedersen, best known for the tennis drama Borg vs McEnroe, and written by Sam Chalsen and Nelson Greaves. It was shot in Montreal in June 2025 and runs about 100 minutes.

Tremblay and Crowe

The performances are the part of the film that critics have praised most. IndieWire's review headline said Tremblay "stuns" in the role. RogerEbert.com's Robert Daniels, who was otherwise very hard on the film, described "a temperamental Tremblay" and "a sly Crowe," and said the two leads rise above the rest of the film.

Their scenes together are the center of the Harvard storyline. Crowe's Murray is the man running the tests, and Tremblay's Kaczynski is the brilliant, vulnerable student on the receiving end. According to RogerEbert.com, their final debate is predictable but well acted.

Woodley has not fared as well. RogerEbert.com said, bluntly, that "the less said about the wooden Woodley, the better."

What critics said

The reviews have been mostly negative. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 23% score from 26 critics. On Metacritic, it sits at 46 out of 100, which counts as "mixed or average."

RogerEbert.com was especially critical, calling it "a shallow made-for-TV movie." Daniels argued that the flashbacks do little to connect to the present-day story and that Kaczynski barely appears as an adult, so the film never builds a clear link between the young man at Harvard and the bomber the FBI was hunting. He also objected to the opening scene, a package-bomb sequence, for using a victim's suffering to build suspense.

Variety's review headline called it "a hokey Netflix retread of the Ted Kaczynski case." IndieWire was kinder about Tremblay but said in its headline that the film "still can't decide if Kaczynski was crazy," which points to the film's biggest problem: it raises big questions about why he did what he did, but doesn't answer them clearly.

The Harvard experiments angle

The most interesting choice the film makes is its focus on Harvard. Many earlier versions of the story center on the manhunt. This one puts much of its weight on the psychological study Kaczynski took part in as a teenager.

That study was real, and it has long been a subject of debate. Some writers have suggested it may have played a role in shaping Kaczynski's later anger, while others warn against treating it as an explanation for his crimes. The film leans into the idea, but critics felt it doesn't fully commit to it or explore it with enough depth.

It's a delicate line. Any film about a real killer risks either making him seem more sympathetic than he should be or making the story too simple. Unabomber seems to struggle with exactly that balance.

How it compares

If you're interested in the Unabomber case, this isn't the only option on streaming. Netflix also has Unabomber: In His Own Words, a documentary series built around recordings of Kaczynski himself. And Manhunt: Unabomber, the 2017 drama starring Paul Bettany as Kaczynski and Sam Worthington as an FBI profiler, is often praised as one of the stronger dramatizations of the case.

Compared to those, the new film is shorter and more focused on Kaczynski's youth. That makes it a different angle, even if critics think it doesn't fully work.

Audiences are watching anyway

Despite the reviews, Unabomber has drawn a big audience. According to Samba TV data reported by TheWrap, it was the most-watched streaming title in its panel of U.S. households for the week ending in early October, ahead of Monster: The Lizzie Borden Story and Ted Lasso.

That's not surprising. True crime is one of the most popular genres on Netflix, and a famous case plus recognizable stars is a strong pull, whatever the critics say.

Should you watch it?

If you're interested in the Harvard side of the story, or you want to see Jacob Tremblay take on a very adult role, it may be worth a look. The performances from Tremblay and Crowe are the main reason to watch.

If you want the most complete or reliable version of the case, though, start elsewhere. Critics broadly agree that this film is uneven, and the documentary and the earlier series cover the story in more depth.

It's worth remembering that this is a story with real victims. Three people were killed, and many more were badly hurt. Any version of the case should be watched with that in mind.

I'll admit the Harvard angle is what interests me most. It's a less familiar part of the story, and it asks a question worth thinking about, even if the film doesn't fully answer it. But I'd watch it as a companion piece, not as the definitive account.

So if you press play, treat it as one interpretation of a complicated story. Then, if it leaves you with questions, look for the documentaries and books that go deeper.