They Called Him Mostly Harmless (2024) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
47 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Interesting subject with toxic side characters
Last-Call10 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
This is an interesting look into someone who wanted to disappear and the lengths they went to in order to stay anonymous. What ruins the documentary is the drama between the internet sleuths. Namely Christine. An unlikable person who claims she wants to help and only she knows how to do it. What we see is a sad person who uses this real life scenario to be the center of attention and tell people what to do.

She actually thinks she solved the case. The crowd sourced DNA testing solved the case. She merely dipped her pole back in the water when it was properly chummed. At that point the identification was inevitable. Her Facebook group just happened to get the message.

This documentary does show the damage the amateurs can do to real families. It's gross. Christine's personality is gross. Because of that I wouldn't watch this again.
61 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A fascinating doc, but you need to know what you're getting
comradecupcake15 February 2024
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.
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Perspective from someone who is experienced where he died...
Airman8713 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I am a Florida Trail hiker. I know the area he died. The only real mystery you'll find in Mostly Harmless' story is the struggle to identify him. I do not know why the media continues making his death some grand mystery.

Here are the real facts. He would have known there was a road, a tourist-filled animal adventure park, and even a town with emergency services just a half-day's hike away; because that is the direction he came from! If he had an emergency (i.e. Caught giardia) and was able to hike out, he could have just turned around from where he came from and went for help. A fatal snake bite is a high possibility, but an autopsy report would have shown that.

What likely happened is he starved himself on his journey southward to such a frail state that he ended up getting heat stroke that was fatal. He probably had not been drinking, felt delirious and cold, so he went inside his tent to lay down, lost consciousness, and that was it... The time of year and conditions are brutal, and there is some uncertainty about his water filtration/supply. It is possible he was also rationing water because he did not want to drink water from the swamp and canals.

The only unanswered question about this case is: Was the starvation intentional (to end his own life) or was the starvation due to his hubris and penny-pinching? He was unprepared for basically the entirety of his journey. Was he just trying to just be cheap and buy/eat as little food as possible? He was known to work for free meals along the way, despite having more than enough cash to make it to Key West (his final destination where he wanted to get a job). He was likely saving that cash for rent money and refused to buy basic supplies, having previously had an eating disorder where he refused to eat, he would be accustomed to it.

Either way, it is a sad story, even if he was (supposedly) outcasted for being violent toward other people in his past. I just personally don't believe there is anything very mysterious here other than a story that makes people gossip.
29 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The good, the bad, and the sometimes extremely ugly world of Internet sleuthing
Curt-Rowlett10 February 2024
I was living in Naples, Florida when the news was first reported that a man had been found deceased inside a tent in the woods of the nearby Big Cypress reserve area. And I remember that the angle of the story was one of mystery as to just how the man had died and that his identity remained undetermined. The case was in the news for a few days, then it essentially vanished and we, the public, moved onto other things.

So I was genuinely a bit surprised to learn that the search to find out just who the person was and how he died had become such a massive undertaking by those people on the Internet who style themselves as amateur sleuths.

This documentary is an interesting look at how those Internet communities, along with law enforcement and the assistance of a sophisticated DNA lab, were finally able to determine who the deceased man, known by his trail hiking name as "Mostly Harmless," actually was, and just what his backstory consisted of.

And the final reveal definitely included some real surprises, once the actual truth is discovered.

Like all of these kind of modern documentaries that look at the world of amateur sleuths who immerse themselves in true crime and other similar unsolved mysteries, there is good and bad and even some extremely ugly aspects to what people will allow themselves to devolve into so far as their emotional investment in a case is concerned.

Worth a watch if you enjoy this particular genre.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Mostly good, except for one person
sterekevr11 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I very much enjoyed this documentary, many interviewees who were dedicated to finding out who "mostly harmless" really shows that the hiking community is a hodgepodge of people. As per Max, the film had amazing scenes and shots of nature, and they don't show any graphic photos of Mostly Harmless's dead body. However, the main person who really started the whole internet fascination (Christie) seemed so hypocritical and holds a superiority complex that carries throughout the entire film. From being extremely controlling to flat out cyber bullying someone just because she saw them as a competitor in solving Vance's death, Christie almost ruined the entire documentary for me.

Christie gets very emotional when she thought she found who Mostly Harmless was, and puts up a "poor me" act after she basically organized an entire group to harass the moderator of Christie's previous Facebook group. The rest of the documentary is basically her weeping about poor ol' Vance and her dedication to his case while completely ignoring her own abusiveness towards those who wouldn't let her have full control of them and/or Vance's case.

Another thing to note that others have pointed out, several of the people interviewed were in such disbelief that this warm, soft spoken hiker was actually an abuser that they all but disregarded the evidence to mourn the death of someone they thought they knew from a few interactions. Christie herself states that Vance's death absolutely was not a suicide, nor did he abuse his previous girlfriends.

Internet sleuths themselves are extremely invasive towards people who they think are somehow related to whatever it is they are investigating, and Max's documentary shows that very well. "They Called Him Mostly Harmless" is definitely worth a watch if you can get passed how cringe Christie is. I'd certainly recommend it to friends in the future.
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Where did they find these people
dancinqueen-3860311 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
The group of people they interviewed were all so random... the entire film is speculation... no answers are given at the end. They only find the name of the guy "mostly harmless" and apparently he beat up girls before he kills himself on the trail by starving himself... that's basically summed up what happened in 90 minutes. No one they interviewed really Knew him but they all were obsessed with him which was weird ... they all seemed like they were just doing it for attention. It was a boring documentary. I don't know it didn't need to be as long as it was so I'd just good an article and read about it instead of wasting time.
55 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Interesting to true crime enthusiasts
stekos-9531913 February 2024
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.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
90 minutes
pdc1572514 February 2024
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?
41 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
well, indeed...
ops-5253510 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
A job well done, is the first thought that rams my mind, and also the thought of people engaging and uniting themselves together on the social media as socalled ''web-sleuths'' really amazes me. So again , job well done.

I live in norway were society is more transparent and easier to control and survey, where john doe's usually are foreign citizens or illegal immigrants thats not implemented in our registers, so practizing sleuthing on the internet over here would be a boring task. Had i been an american ....ai mait bi a sluth tu.

Its merely a documantary story about a hiker found dead in a tent, which lighted a flame of enthusiasm among other trailers, bear hivers(the sleuths) media and police investigatorrs. Dna sampled the truth in the end, even though foundraising was needed, it found the answer.

Im a dog on the trail myself after breaking my back 6 years ago, taking the task of reflecting the trails with pieces of reflective material (reflexes) for the purpose of life saving, but most of all for the fun of walking the trails in the dark using head lamp, i call it ''a trail of hope and reflextion'' and rehabilitation of a grumpy old man.

Well worth your time to watch.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This Documentary is NOT True Crime and NOT Worth Watching.
jburtonprod-802-75902913 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
The ads for this documentary make you think there is some big crime that's going to be discovered. There isn't.

A big part of the video is self-proclaimed 'internet sleuths' complaining about how they were treated online. This is NOT a 'true crime' documentary and never should've been marketed as such.

The real story was about an unidentified hiker that was found dead from starvation. The video gives the impression that once they discover the identity of the hiker a great mystery, possibly a murder, will be solved. There is no great mystery. It's just a guy who came from a badly dysfunctional family who had some abusive relationships with women and then decided to drop off the grid. That's it.

I can see no reason why anyone would think this story was worth the time, effort and money to make a documentary. I think this is the beginning of the 'Selfie' generation thinking that every little thing they come across is worthy of documenting just because they came across it. They need to grow up.

This doc is a waste of time and never should've made it to HBO.
56 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
docu telling us about a death in the everglades.
ksf-215 February 2024
When hikers find a body in big cypress national preserve, in florida, investigators try to figure out who it is. Was. No cast listed on imdb, but there are a few captions showing who is currently speaking. The telling of a story from 2018. And it took another two years to identify the dude. He had no cell phone, totally off the grid. Many folks had seen him along the appalachian trail, but no-one new much about him. Because he told a different story each time he met someone. They start a crowdfunding account to pay for dna testing, which got them to the right part of the united states. Facebook helped to track him down. Apparently, he was not a nice person. You'll have to watch the film to find out the details. Mystery solved. Eighty nine minutes. Directed by patricia gillespie. She has directed three docs and a short film.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
a sad, tragic story
debbystardust6 March 2024
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's Not HBO, It's just TV
Ohscissormetimbers11 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
This starts out like a yesteryear HBO production but quickly devolves into something you would see on a daytime true crime network. It's difficult to recommend this to really anyone at all, because it lacks so many of the components that used to make HBO stand out amongst its peers. What you end up with in this documentary has very little to do with what you are pitched in the trailer. This is 30 minutes of mystery regarding the identity of this nameless hiker followed by an hour of several embittered older women fighting with one another over moderator status on Facebook groups.

What is actually alarming about the movie is not the content, but how far people will go to make sure there is no privacy in this world at all. Yes, the subjects of this movie find out who "Mostly Harmless" is at the end, but at a cost. I call these internet sleuths "subjects" because the director clearly deviated paths at some point during this production. What started as a documentary on a dead hiker turned into a lazy character study on several older women who had little to live for other than this story. Thus, the "subjects" of the movie were the women who helped find out who this gentlemen was, while engaging in a virtual slap fight in the process. I am loathe to discuss that part of this film because it gives these women more of an audience than they really deserve. But it's what the director ultimately settled on to stretch this from an hour to an hour and a half. Show or movie. That was the dilemma. He made a movie, which meant filling that thirty minutes. As a show, this could have worked. As a movie, it did not.

Of note, we do learn who "Mostly Harmless" is and we also learn that he has a troubled past and apparently felt he had a troubled future. All signs point to him having starved himself to death as a means to end his own life. This was despite having several apparently meaningful interactions during a year+ hike on the Appalachian trail. Several of the people he interacted with ended up being interviewed for the documentary, but none proved helpful in ascertaining who he was. It was ultimately a DNA study and subsequent pamphleting of his Louisiana town that uncovered his identify.

In the end, this movie begs an important and very sad question. The man in this movie did everything he could to go off the grid and to die, alone and unknown, on his own terms. What he got instead was the exact opposite. Thousands of people rallied together to identify him and then, after his death, several other people claimed he was a terrible person. Of course, those people only came out of the woodwork once the story was known and notoriety was to be had, but even taken as true, one has to wonder what purpose this story served. This gentlemen clearly wanted nothing more than to fade into the abyss. Instead, he got sleuthed by a bunch of people who were more worried about Facebook moderator status than anything else. And then, in death, his entire life was unearthed and made public. That unearthing showed a guy who struggled with mental health for 41 years and sought to end his own life, maybe as penance and maybe as something else. It's truly none of our business, and it pains me to have watched this documentary and realized that my viewership was part of what this man sought to avoid.

This film is certainly "documentary" in nature in the sense that it tells a story. But the story is not what one expects, nor is it anything most people would care about. Had the focus been on "Mostly Harmless" and not on the women who could only be described as absolutely harmful, it could have been good. But, alas, this is the new HBO. And the new HBO is quantity over quality. There is plenty of quantity here, but the quality is not what it once was.

Shame on you HBO for phoning this one in. Perhaps a show would have been better than a movie this time around.
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Mostly interesting
avindugunasinghe10 February 2024
Vances are born unfortunately into chaos they make chaos and leave chaos behind if unfound. This story strip away the myth of connectedness in modern world and introduce the lonely lives that exists in shadows. Retrospectively the sleuths of whom most are falling into the aforesaid shadow realm put up a wholesome collective effort that gives a John doe a name that he himself wanted the world to forget. It's sad yet a mysterious venture of social detective work. A story told well methodically and cleverly. Rather than making a regular true crime doc this sleuthing odyssey is a unique and an inspiring social commentary.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hike more...eat less???
WeWatchMovies4 April 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I remember the story, I like true crime so wondered about the story at the time but moved on...This documentary is absolutely ridiculous, it's more about Mostly Narcissistic Self Important Attention "w#ore$" that had no life (The dry cleaner mole, eyeliner chick especially) who lived in a motel (seriously) and thought she was the only one who solved it or cared). This doco focuses on crazy majorly overweight people (not that that mattered) that are supposedly avid (except dry cleaner mole woman) hikers or canoe-ers even though they weigh 300 pounds, don't wear bras that thought this nice, quiet dude they met once on a trail was a really neat guy.

At the start our first thought was he went on purpose to possibly that a forever dirt nap since he had food and money, the interesting part was that he had a dysfunctional childhood history so was estranged from his family (don't most of us), had already tried to un-alive himself before, abused his girlfriends in secret, was smart and created game code and no one knew or cared he had disappeared. These people did NOT know him, but acted like they did...obsessed crazies that must have been paid to do this or just needed to be on TV.

Unfortunately these documentaries are getting really heavy on talkers/speculators and light on the mystery and what happened to him, this needs to stop, make documentaries good again . Skip it unless you want to watch self absorbed pretentious annoying people that made it about them, not him. A DNA company that didn't just do it to help or interest but had to crowd source money to do it, really? He ended up being a @$$h0le, oh and Train Angel...w t f??? An interesting story that turned into a clown show. No just no!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Intriguing but too long
marthacrone15 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed this documentary, which had two layers. One was a mystery about the identity of a reclusive hiker who died on the Appalachian Trail, apparently of starvation. The other was a character study of the very strange people who are obsessed with amateur internet sleuthing. The two layers intersect through the puzzling obsession of two women who never met the deceased but for some strange reason they spend inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out who he was. One of those women lives in an extended stay hotel, which made me wonder whether she could have afforded rent if she spent her time working a paying second job instead of spending all her time moderating a group of internet "sleuths." Apparently a lot of people wish they worked in law enforcement. The people were very odd, some likable and some not. I thought the film was well done, with good structure that kept my attention despite being overly long. I'm not sure where reviewers got the idea this was true crime because it was not advertised like that.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Mostly Harmless Is Mostly Boring
toleary19 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I knew about the Mostly Harmless investigation and loosely followed it so going into it I knew where the documentary was headed, or at least I thought so. Really it's a documentary about some of the people who met him on the Appalachian Trail and forum moderator drama. There is so much forum moderator drama in this documentary.

When the 'twist' happens and you find out that Mostly Harmless was actually abusive towards women it gets glossed over. None of the details of his abuse are revealed and it quickly cuts to the people who met him on the trail saying that the Mostly Harmless they knew was a nice guy. Then cutting back to the forum moderators.

If the documentary wanted to be adjacent to the actual story of Mostly Harmless the hiker they could have split it into two parts. The investigation into finding out his identity and then the aftermath when they realize they spent years finding out he wasn't actually a good person.

For the actual story of Mostly Harmless read the 2021 Wired article by Nicholas Thompson, "The Unsettling Truth About the 'Mostly Harmless' Hiker."
26 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
True crime documentary about true crime communities
paul-allaer1 March 2024
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.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not the sleuths
Calicodreamin20 February 2024
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.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Had its moments
greatandimproving26 February 2024
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
This was good what y'all talking bout
Heiura2 March 2024
Maybe it's a specific genre which show the behind the scenes of amateur detectives/sluethes but I like it. I even like how they show how nutty they get. These groups and people online literally go bonkers, it's hilarious. What is also ironic is it's usually when people try to escape this type of craziness that they end up getting caught up in it after they die or whatever.

Lesson learned: if you ever want to die anonymously please don't go into the woods or to a strange place far from home and leave your id or whatever. You will end up becoming internet famous and have wacky people having gang wars in your name lol.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Mostly Harmless/ Vance Rodriguez
gogetawake19 February 2024
I can see his orbital was crushed left and right young was that overlooked in the investigation? Got name by Dr Grande who knows if Disney cares about celebrities fake names anymore? I am still currently looking at the movie and yet I find that YouTube having past pics that still show that the damage happened young. Why Mostly Harmless he with his past would not like bullies so perhaps he was apt to protect ones whom couldn't protect themselves. The scar is appendix scar by the looks to me. Most of what could have been was compiled by ones talking. If you ask me he looks like he could be a child of John Candy.
0 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Possibly the dumbest "true crime documentary" I've ever seen
kaideneve1 April 2024
Warning: Spoilers
The poor guy who is the supposed topic of this nonsense production is probably spinning in his grave. I say he is the supposed topic, because a large part of the runtime is spent on the personal drama of a couple of conspiracy theorist ladies bickering back and forth via their Facebook group.

At the end they basically throw him under the bus (the journalist uses profanity to describe him) based on anecdotes from a couple of ex girlfriends, then pick apart his life and mental health. Let me be more specific... those same boomer ladies and a tech "journalist" speculate on his mental health based on cursory evidence that is presented almost as an afterthought after over an hour of runtime.

No mental health professionals appear in this entire documentary. This is ironic as almost every person being interviewed seem like the ones in need of mental help. There are no crimes committed. His actual cause of death is not revealed. This is by far the worst thing I've watched on HBO. DO NOT waste your time.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not what was marketed but is something else
bczech-46-4855955 March 2024
I assumed by the marketing that this was a true-crime doc but while the documentary moves through the examination of who this person was that was found dead along a trail, what it really is is an examination on the true crime trackers. These people who invested so much time and effort in, not only trying to figure out the identity of the person but also the reflection of who he was and who they wanted him to be.

To see these people come to grips with their own obsession with who "Mostly Harmless" was and who he turned out to be was the interesting point of the documentary.

The production flows quite nicely and is worth the 90 minutes of time.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They called him...
BubbaSchwabb29 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Vance Rodriguez There. Now you know his name so you can skip the 90 minutes of BS. He was from Louisiana and apparently a bit of a dick if you are to believe people who knew him (he's not around to defend himself so I take it with a grain of salt). I don't understand why this even needed to be a documentary. How many John and Jane Doe are there in this country? There has to be one more interesting than this guy. Everyone in this documentary is unlikable. There's not even anything more to say about it. I'm only writing still so that I can meet the required character count. Go watch American nightmare on Netflix instead.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed