Change Your Image
Ohscissormetimbers
Reviews
They Called Him Mostly Harmless (2024)
It's Not HBO, It's just TV
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.
The Fall of the House of Usher (2023)
Enough Already
We were excited to watch this having enjoyed some of the director's other series. Those other series contained some of the same leanings but they were at least believable. In this one, however, we are asked to believe that every single character has similar proclivities regardless of background. It's a lazy and lame effort to force an agenda down the viewer's throat where no such agenda was needed. It's a shame because we were looking forward to this, but horror generally requires some emotional investment and ability to suspend disbelief once a relationship with the characters has been developed. That can't happen if the ensemble of characters is made of up an impossibly homogeneous mix by a director who seeks to beat the audience over the head with signals of his virtue. Don't waste your time on this nonsense.
Most Dangerous Game (2020)
Sort of my fault....
I didn't realize this was a TV series when I made the mistake of clicking on the Amazon "movie" link through Prime Video. With just shy of a 7/10, I figured that makes it a fairly solid action movie. What I didn't realize, however, was that the "movie" is just a bunch of crappy TV episodes mashed together. TV shows skew about a full star higher than movies. So, for me, a palatable movie is usually 6.5 and higher whereas TV shows needs to be 7.5 or higher. Unfortunately, I did not realize until it was too late that the 6.7 rating for his "movie" was actually for the TV show, which makes it pretty much terrible. And boy was it ever bad. The plot holes are just insane. It was as if the writers just said, wouldn't it be cool if right here we had him go into a church and the priest was a killer. And everyone in the room said, yeah, that would be cool, but how do we explain it in a believable way. And the other writers said, who cares, let's just do it. And that's how the entire movie goes. The writers just do whatever they want without any real justification. In hindsight, it makes perfect sense. A plot does not need to logical or even linear when you have a week in between TV episodes. When you mash them together to make a movie, however, those issues really stand out.
This was so bad my wife was visibly upset with me for leading her down this path of wasted time. So, so, so bad.
The Night House (2020)
Basically a modern twist on What Lies Beneath
Given how bad the horror genre is, this was actually pretty compelling. Plenty of jump scares and very good acting. It was only at the very end that we started seeing some worn out horror cliches like the ghost writing in the fog on the shower door or the random broken floorboard that happens to hide all the secrets. This would have been an 8 or even a 9 but it was clear the writers just did not know how to end the movie. It would have been a more rewarding ending for her to resolve the mystery on her own instead of basically having the ghost explain everything to her. But in a weak genre, this gets a 7 just for not being laughably stupid like Malignant.
The Old Ways (2020)
Muy muy mal
I've wasted some time in my life and made a lot of bad decisions. But watching this awful movie was maybe the worst decision I've ever made in my life. I'm ashamed to have wasted my time on this awful piece of crap. I'm embarrassed that I wasted my wife's time as well. Honestly, if she left me after making her watch this I would completely understand. I mean, how could she ever trust my judgment again? Sweet lord was this awful. Save your time. Save your marriage. Don't watch this.
My Octopus Teacher (2020)
Movie about two spineless creatures, one was an octopus
This is a movie about a guy who becomes obsessed with an octopus while free diving near his coastal home. The point of the film is to demonstrate that octopus are intelligent creatures with feelings and thoughts and emotions. To that end, the film shows numerous instances where our lead, Craig Foster, engages with this octopus. In some instances, the octopus even swims to him and he cuddles it to his chest. Whether this is just instinctual behavior or actual attachment is probably up to each viewer to decide. But what is not subjective in any way is that Foster is a swimming, snorkling piece of feces. Despite expressing his deep emotional attachment to this octopus throughout the film, in the closing moments we see that the octopus is so famished from taking care of its young, that it is essentially helpless. Without food, it is basically left for dead. So, what does Foster do? He leaves it laying on the ocean floor while it gets slowly eaten alive by other fish. And I mean slowly. He films the carnage over a two day period before a shark finally takes the entire body. He claims he does this not to interfere with the circle of life, but he already did that by feeding the very same octopus when it was injured earlier in the film. The reality is that Foster had an opportunity to hold this "friend" of his and comfort it during its last moments on Earth. Instead, Foster simply swims overhead and films the ordeal so that he can have a tragic ending to this film. The irony is that the movie is supposed to be about appreciating nature and yet Foster exploits nature throughout. When he had a chance to truly give something back he became more spineless than the octopus he claims to have cared for.
1/10 because bad people shouldn't be rewarded with good ratings.
Marriage Story (2019)
A movie that will make you cringe in all the worst ways
I came in to this movie hoping for something resembling a story of two adults doing what's best for their child even though they were going through a divorce. What I got was one adult, Charlie (Adam Driver) being dragged through a river of crap by his selfish, child of a wife Nicole (Scarlett Johansson).
Although the writers make an effort to portray Nicole as a victim by virtue of her moving to NYC to be with Charlie, the film backtracks on that narrative by Nicole's own admission that she was miserable in L.A. because of her then boyfriend. Nicole needed a change of scenery. Enter Charlie. She met him, moved to NYC, married him, worked with him to create a successful business, and then pulled the rug out from under him once his fame began to surpass her own.
In an effort to justify her behavior, Nicole alludes to an "affair" Charlie had, but we later learn that it only occurred after he and Nicole were separated but under the same roof. As Charlie put it, he was sleeping on the couch at that point and living with a woman who loathed him for his success and her belief that she gave up too much when she (voluntarily) left L.A.
Every act taken by Nicole in this film screams of weakness and insecurity. Nicole can be pushed and pulled in whatever direction anyone wants her to take. She and Charlie agree that they don't want a nasty divorce. So, what does she do? She hires the nastiest divorce lawyer in L.A. at the suggestion of a woman she has known for five minutes. She moves their son to L.A. under false pretenses and files for divorce in L.A. Why? Because her attorney told her to. The goal? To make sure Charlie has to hire an L.A. lawyer at great expense. You see, she knows he can't afford to fight for custody in L.A. But is that enough? Nope. Nicole then goes all over L.A. meeting with other divorce attorneys. Why does she do this (with her kid in tow mind you) when she already has an attorney? To create a conflict of interest in case Charlie wanted to retain a competent attorney of his own. Attorneys can't work with Charlie once she has poisoned the well you see. She does all this to make sure Charlie can't see his child. Meanwhile, she acknowledges how great of a dad he is. "He does the things for their son that should bother him, and enjoys doing it. To the point that she hates him for it".
This was all done before Charlie even knows what's coming. In the meantime, Nicole continues to shower Charlie with praise and assure him she wants what's best for both of them. But, you see, Nicole is a coward. She cannot fight her own fights, and despite paying tens of thousands of dollars for her attorney (but first making sure that Charlie has to pay 30% of it), she forces her sister to serve Charlie with divorce papers. Why would she make her sister do this when it would only cost a couple hundred bucks to have it done by an actual process server? Well, because this hurts more. Charlie is close with Nicole's family. In fact, it's the only family he has and has ever had. So, naturally, Nicole wants his sister in law to serve him with the divorce papers. "You have to take a side" she tells her mom. "You can't have a relationship with Charlie anymore" under any circumstances. Why? Because, it's about the hurt. Nicole is an insecure child. Her only satisfaction in this film comes from forcing others to share in her misery.
As Nicole drags everyone else into her miserable existence with the hope that it will prop her up, Charlie continues propping up others around him despite his misery. He is a legitimately good person who doesn't deserve the hand he is being dealt. In a fruitless effort to fight for his child, he throws away a $625,000 grant which was supposed to be used for his business. He becomes a victim to a society and a court system that assumes fathers are pieces of crap while mothers can do no wrong. Ironically, at one point in the film Nicole's rabid attorney states the exact opposite, that Nicole needs to be perfect but Charlie can be a buffoon. Those who live in reality know that is not the case. It takes something bordering on child endangerment before a mother loses priority when it comes to custody.
Ultimately, Charlie does what every man seems to do in these films. He loses. First he loses his wife because she decides on a whim that New York is no longer good enough. Then he loses his son when she moves him to L.A. under the cover of night. Finally, Charlie loses his livelihood when he can no longer afford to keep the theater open and has to choose between his life's work and his son. As the film closes we see that he has lost once more. He has lost his will to fight. He takes a menial job in Los Angeles (to Nicole's dismay mind you) directing small bit plays. His status as an up and coming Broadway director is gone. Nicole has gotten everything she wanted without even the tiniest compromise. Charlie has lost everything. He has been handed a pile of crap by his wife and is being told in no uncertain terms that he will eat it and tell her how great it tastes. If he refuses, he won't see his child.
While it is obvious that Johannson is not Nicole, she embodies her completely, and I personally wonder if I will enjoy her other movies in the future given how despicable a character Nicole is in this film. 5 stars out of 10 for the acting and direction, but the way Nicole's character was written makes me wonder what the goal of this film is. It certainly is not intended to make anyone feel good about the state of humanity as it currently exists.
Valley of the Boom (2019)
Don't believe the naysayers
This is a GREAT and really informative show about the tech boom and how all sorts of people came out of the woodwork to take advantage. I am not sure how anyone could watch this and not be entertained by the sheer ridiculousness of some of the things people did. I get that it is a docudrama and, therefore, some of the facts are embellished, but that can't possibly make this a one star series. Strange that the ratings are near a 7 overall but the only people who have posted written reviews have it at a 1 or 2. To me that suggests there are a few haters out there who didn't get what they wanted out of this show and they are dragging down the rating without giving it a real chance. This is an excellent series that has been getting better with each episode. The Michael Fenne story is so ridiculous and hilarious that it is worth watching just to see that part alone.