You Can See Everything (2026)

Kelly finds the documentary boundary-pushing, absurd, and disquieting, while praising its ability to leave viewers curious even after its lengthy runtime. She singles out Fielder and Oppenheim’s unsettling, open-ended approach and the film’s craft, which balance tension with comedy.

Horton calls the documentary a thrilling, destabilizing masterpiece that lives up to the hype. She especially praises how the filmmakers’ contrasting styles turn Holmes and Fielder’s uneasy interactions into a compelling study of trust and deception.

Castillo calls the documentary a stunning, convention-defying reevaluation of what documentaries can do. She praises its probing approach to Holmes and the stylish visual flourishes that sharpen the tension between Fielder and Evans.

Brody finds the film fascinating, ingenious, and strangely beautiful despite its unsettling confrontations. He praises how its scrutiny of Holmes gradually turns into a searching examination of the filmmaker’s own assumptions about truth and love.

Willmore calls the film astounding and ingenious, praising its probing, cinematic exploration of truth and documentary ethics. She singles out the unsettling, intimate scenes with Elizabeth Holmes and the film’s remarkable third act.

Shaffer finds the film thrilling and form-breaking, arguing that its hybrid approach rises above a conventional true-crime portrait. He praises how the filmmakers blur documentation and reenactment to explore the unstable boundary between fact and fiction.

Han finds the documentary smart, funny, and full of surprises, ultimately raising perceptive questions about truth and accuracy. She particularly praises its meta, surreal second half and its playful interrogation of how filmmakers shape a subject’s story.

Nicholson finds the documentary absorbing and thrillingly unsettling, leaving viewers suspicious of both Holmes and Fielder. She especially praises Amanda Seyfried’s emotionally intense reenactments, which deepen the film’s reality-bending psychological drama.

Gleiberman finds the documentary shameless and fascinating, and says it takes wing in its second half. He praises Amanda Seyfried’s increasingly eerie performance as Holmes and the film’s playful, unsettling overlap of reality and performance.

The review presents the documentary as fascinating, while describing Elizabeth Holmes as a slippery subject. It singles out the challenge of capturing Holmes as the film’s central complication.

The critic calls the documentary riveting, confounding, and thoroughly satisfying, while noting that it leaves viewers with more questions than answers. He particularly praises Nathan Fielder’s presence and the film’s unsettling, mind-bending revelations.

The critic calls the documentary a blisteringly original achievement and sees it as a singular, compulsively entertaining film. He praises its genre-shifting exploration of deception, perspective, and reality, as well as Holmes’s unexpectedly compelling presence.

Miller finds the documentary an inventive, hilarious, and deeply unsettling examination of truth and perception. She especially praises its striking cinematography and the way its layers of uncertainty deepen the story.

Hammond calls it a startling, uniquely compelling documentary and praises its astonishing access and clever second act. He singles out Nathan Fielder’s deadpan, fearless questioning as a major strength.

The critic calls it a masterful, hypnotic snapshot of a post-truth world. He praises how Fielder’s on-screen presence and the film’s later acts complicate questions of truth and objectivity.

The critic calls the film an involving, formally inventive documentary that becomes a sharp interrogation of truth and filmmaking. They praise how Fielder and Oppenheim turn uncertainty and missing footage into a compelling cinematic experience.

Nayman finds the documentary stunning and engrossing, while probing its ethical contradictions. He singles out its unsettling intimacy and the way Fielder’s apparent confusion makes the filmmaking compelling.

Ellwood finds the documentary remarkable and often brilliant, with an engrossing second half that earns forgiveness for its excessive length. He praises the film’s tense storytelling and startling revelations while noting its indulgent runtime.