REVIEW: “You Can See Everything” (2026)

(Source: IMDb) 

It’s been said that truth is stranger than fiction. The thing is, how do we discern one from the other? 

Elizabeth Holmes dropped out of Stanford University at the age of 19 to found the company she claimed would revolutionize blood testing, as well as the health and pharmaceutical industries at large. In a short number of years, several business investors and clients quickly boarded the bandwagon known as Theranos (a combination of therapy and diagnosis), mesmerized by the very concept and reported lab results from a single drop of blood. 

Later, it was revealed that not only did the technology not work. (Outsiders and experts had questions and concerns even before that, regarding the company’s tech, as well as their ethics and methods.) Furthermore, said clients and investors were all scammed, as the whole thing was staged. 

Holmes is currently serving an 11-year prison term for fraud. One month before her sentence, she and her partner Billy Evans allowed filmmakers Lance Oppenheim (who recently made the Chris Hansen thriller Primetime) and Nathan Fielder (a comedy writer known for the improv series’ The Rehearsal and Nathan For You) into their home to chronicle the next 34 days, as well as the aftermath. 

You Can See Everything was reportedly filmed in secret, and nobody else knew it existed until it made a surprise premiere at the Telluride Film Festival last September. Released by A24, the first teaser trailer (which was released shortly after its festival premiere) instantly gives the impression of a psychological thriller, feeling more like a film than a documentary, as Holmes and Fielder stare down each other, blurring the lines between reality and performance, and questioning what is real and what isn’t. Holmes’ reaction may be the most unsettling image in any theatrical release this year, even more than Inde Navarette’s performance in Obsession or any of the Backrooms (another A24 release). 

In retrospect, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film or doc like this before. You Can See Everything has quickly become one of the year’s most talked-about films, and one of the most acclaimed. (It currently ranks as one of the highest-rated films on Letterboxd.) There’s even early Oscar buzz for this film to not only break into the Best Documentary category, but also Best Picture. Very rarely do such films get this kind of word-of-mouth and discussion. Not to mention transcending their respective mediums and forms. Having seen it, I can understand why it’s striking such a cord with critics and audiences. 

Frankly, I’m still processing the whole thing. It’s such a wild, uncomfortable, and engrossing piece of cinema, that it almost exists in a category of its own, with elements of myths and mysteries behind who Holmes really is. One of her supposed objectives for inviting Fielder and Oppenheim into her home was to capture what she calls “radical transparency.” But is she being transparent? Or is she just playing us, living the life of a “character” she reportedly created (at least, as the New York Times quoted)? One thing for sure is that Holmes is plain hard to get. 

Or, could it be that she’s the kind of person that is uncomfortable being herself? (Just a thought, but a big thought.) There are rare though brief moments of sincerity from Holmes, from the love she has for her children to when she contemplates what she will be remembered for, and when she cries on camera. Still, the differing opinions and comments throughout overshadow that sincerity. Yet, as her partner claims, “She’s not a normal person.” 

Two other elements that really struck me were Ari Balouzian’s intense and nerve-racking score, and the 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which create a sense of claustrophobia and thematic layers that challenge our perceptions of people. The latter’s extreme closeups of peoples’ faces, along with several zoom-ins, zoom-outs and handheld coverage, really test our patience, even our space. (Fourth wall closeups were a trademark of the late Jonathan Demme, who used similar techniques in films like The Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia.) 

Fielder’s background in improvisational comedy creates moments that put people outside their comfort zone. In fact, he is arguably this piece’s main observer, whether he’s witnessing off camera or in front of it, or up close or from a long distance, like a private investigator or journalist. It’s a bold stroke for the amount of time Fielder and Oppenheim spend contemplating and discerning at best everything that’s going on and being said. We, as viewers, are right there, witnessing and processing with them. Even with what they can’t shoot on camera behind closed doors, the audio they pick up at times is just as (if not more) powerful. Still, the film’s title is ironic: are we really seeing everything, or nothing? 

Some are considering You Can See Everything to be a film for the moment, in terms of where we are as a culture and as a society, and what we believe (or choose to believe) about other people. Ditto the subjective meanings or interpretations from that, including the use or misuse (even nonconsensual) of social media, as well as possibly toxic relationships, narcissism, and maybe Stockholm Syndrome. There’s even the question of “What next,” in terms of choices about what can or cannot be done, and what should or shouldn’t be done). 

Without spoiling anything major, I will say the way that the Hulu miniseries The Dropout (which starred Amanda Seyfried as Holmes) is referenced and incorporated into this 2026 piece really threw me for a loop, even going meta as such. (Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s recent satire Digger had a similar though different take on the theme of “controlling the narrative.”) What a perplexing trip this film is. It’s agreeably a standout this year if not the film of the year, even if it leaves us with more questions than answers. And that’s a real thing.