They Called Him Mostly Harmless

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.

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.

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.

Max seems to play on Netflix's documentary style in this sad tale. There's even a slim, hyper man who keeps reminding us "I'm a journalist," but he isn't nearly as kooky as Netflix's self-described "aviation journalist." (As a kooky, semi-successful writer, I can relate.)

The story follows the tale of a John Doe found dead in a tent. Along the way, we learn about Appalachian trail culture, internet sleuths (and trolls), and, finally, the rather disappointing ending. When the previously mentioned journalist hyped about "a bad, bad man" in the trailer, I was expecting a serial killer or something to emerge. The truth is much sadder.

One wonders if Max isn't a bit condescending to its interviewees. Why show us the saddest geriatric square dance ever performed? Why linger on petty squabbles amongst internet sleuths? What was the point of a camera shot of a ceiling fan and then a Mr. Coffee machine? I still love Max, but I might choose a documentary about something historical next time.