They Called Him Mostly Harmless

If you've ever seen one of the interminable Netflix true crime docs where they cram 30 minutes of information into 3 hours, you have seen this documentary. The balance of this thing comprises people who don't leave the house talking about their online obsessions with people they don't know. The rest of the documentary is people opining, speculating, and drawing lines where there is no evidence. It's such a spectacular bore. You'd be better off reading a Wikipedia page and the. Getting on with the rest of your day. It's the documentary equivalent of this review, where you just keep going because you have space they're requiring you to fill.

The only thing that I'm really taking away from this documentary is what a loathsome narcissistic P. O. S. Christie is. She doesn't really seem to care at all about the case, she just wants to be the one to solve it. I know exactly what kind of person she is; she gets off on power, on being in charge. Basically, an entitled Karen. The one comment that defined her, made after she shot her mouth off about 'cracking the case', wasn't anything to do with any kind of regret about making a mistake in identifying the hiker, it was about how the mistake would make her look. What an awful human being. Christie, I hope you're reading this. Do better. Be better.

The internet sleuthing dimension got in the way of a really compelling story imo. I don't mind that they talked about the search and the communities cultivated online (emphasis on "cult"). But I wish the producers didn't focus so much on those elements. A nice tight one-hour doc about a man whose isolation led him permanently into the wilderness- and whose identity was only discovered through new technology, crowdfunding and the will of strangers- would have been solid. Instead, too much time was spent on the strangers. The more "serious" it got the more I laughed, and the film lost its punch in the process.

I still think it's worth watching, tho. I won't jump on the hate bandwagon lol. For one, I had never heard anything about his story before and it left me with plenty of food for thought. While this man did something very few (if any) of us would ever do, his life was still surprisingly relatable. How much of that has to do with what you know about him, and how much of it has to do with what you don't?

I thought the quote the producers found from Adams' book was a gem, and really captured the central theme of the project: "Let the past hold on to itself and let the present move forward into the future." Such a pointed reminder for everyone involved: be it those of us watching at home; characters who participated *from home; and maybe most notably "Mr. Harmless" himself, who could never find his way home at all.

This is what happens when a story can be told in one hour, yet the filmmakers need to fill 90 minutes. The whole background of the Facebook group members and their drama was such obvious filler that it ended up taking away from the finished product. The officer originally investigating the case had it right when he said that he skips the drama part when reading the Facebook tips that were coming in. If only we were so lucky.

Apparently reviews have to be stupidly long now so, much like the documentary, it's necessary for me to add a lot of filler in here in order to make the required length. See how annoying it is?

I cannot with these internet sleuths, they are ridiculous, sitting at their computers, harassing real people and only thinly doing good things. Then they try to lay claim to discoveries that they are loosely connected to uncovering. Centering a documentary around these people gives them notoriety that they simply do not deserve. The story itself is interesting if you're willing to weed through the self-centered commentary by the sleuths and focus on the mystery. The ending is pretty good, but mostly goes to show how off kilter many of the tangents the "facebook group" took were, just doing too much.