They Called Him Mostly Harmless

As "They Called Him Mostly Harmless" (2024 release; 89 min.) opens, it is "July 23, 2018", and someone calls 911 to report they found a dead body on a trail in southwest Florida. No name, no credit card, no photo ID. Who is this person? In a parallel story, we are introduced to Christie, who loves to do some internet sleuthing in these types of missing John or Jane Doe cases... At this point we are 10 minutes into the documentary.

Couple of comments: this is the latest from documentarian Patricia Gillespie ("The Fire That Took Her"). Here she reassesses the strange case that is the disappearance of someone nicknamed "Mostly Harmless" on the Appalachian Trail. But in fact, the documentary is just as much about the digital sleuthing communities that are out there to "help" solve unsolved cases like this one. Let me just say that it ain't a pretty picture: petty infighting, name calling, (in)competence, you name, they have it. A reporter from Wired Magazine also gets involved, and the contrast between the reporter and the sleuthing communities couldn't be starker. At just an hour and a half, this documentary clips by in no time.

"They Called Him Mostly Harmless" premiered on HBO several weeks ago, and is also streaming on Max, where I caught it the other night. If you are a fan of true crime documentaries, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

As a fan of various YouTube mystery and crime channels, I recall the tale of Mostly Harmless popping up from time to time. Eventually it was "solved" but the strange, sad and lonely tale retained its interest. If you'd like to hear more about that, I recommend checking out channels on YouTube like Scary Mysteries or Barely Sociable.

What THIS particular documentary represents is the story around the mystery. It's about the toxic and fannish world of True Crime aficionados, the infighting, the clashes, the betrayals and the often sad lives of the people behind the reddit accounts. Yes, the story of Mostly. Harmless is explored, but it's on the periphery.

If you go in knowing what you're getting, that this is as much or more about the amateur forum posters attempting to solve the mystery and give a name to the enigmatic hiker, then you're in for a very fascinating documentary.

But if you're already familiar with the case and looking for a break down or, worse, just looking for a proper investigative mystery, then you will probably come away disappointed and feeling a bit cheated.

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?

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.