Don’t tease me, Nathan Fielder. When you advertise a movie that tells me I can see everything, I expect to see everything. And this blind film critic saw nothing. I walked in expecting that Nathan Fielder and Joshua Oppenheimer had somehow figured out how to allow us to see everything, when, in turn, it’s an Elizabeth Holmes documentary. I was baffled. Stupefied. Surprised. Not really, because You Can See Everything has been dominating Film Twitter since its surprise screening at the 2026 Telluride Film Festival. The nearly three-hour documentary, being released by A24, has started to change the conversation around whether a documentary can be nominated for Best Picture. Realistically, the answer is yes. We have our little categories for Best Animated Feature, Best International Feature, and Best Documentary Feature, but we’ve already crossed the threshold with animated and international films. So why hasn’t a documentary been nominated for Best Picture, especially with the expanded lineup? I feel like The Cove probably came pretty close, and I’ve heard rumblings that Hoop Dreams was in the mix back in the day. But it looks like A24 might finally pull off the ultimate hat trick, getting the first documentary nominated for Best Picture. Not only that, but if Nathan Fielder and Joshua Oppenheimer can break into the Best Director race, that would also be a game changer. And with A24 campaigning a certain someone for Best Supporting Actress, that would be another game changer. In case you haven’t figured it out, this documentary is, in fact, game changing. I’m also going into this review without any sort of spoiler filter, so if you want to know absolutely nothing about the film, you probably shouldn’t see everything I’m about to write.

Depending on which version of the story you believe regarding how this project originated, the cut-to-the-chase version is that Elizabeth Holmes, who was convicted of fraud involving her company Theranos, decided that prior to her incarceration, she wanted to get her side of the story on the record. Holmes, whose rise and fall was chronicled in the Hulu limited series The Dropout, starring Amanda Seyfried, wanted to show the world what life with Elizabeth Holmes was really like. I would argue that Nathan Fielder was also looking for an opportunity to jump into feature-length documentary filmmaking, and joining forces with Joshua Oppenheimer made perfect sense. I believe A24 wasn’t initially willing to back the project, but after the fact, that deal was signed, sealed, and delivered based on the quality of what Nathan and Joshua managed to capture. So Nathan and Joshua, but mostly Nathan due to his onscreen presence, essentially hang out with Elizabeth, her husband Billy Evans, and their children in an exploration of radical transparency. The title, You Can See Everything, comes from a text message Elizabeth sends Nathan, reminding him of just how transparent and open they are willing to be. And there are certainly moments where they seem determined to demonstrate that radical transparency, from a full-frontal encounter with her husband to Elizabeth’s father dropping one hell of a truth bomb that never really gets followed up on or resolved. There are so many little moments along the way that make you question just how performative this family is being, and whether Nathan is successfully getting under their skin and uncovering fresh material about Elizabeth Holmes that we haven’t already encountered.

There were a couple of scenes that really stood out to me in the first half of the film. One involves a conversation about whether Elizabeth actually believes in the product that got her into trouble in the first place. She very carefully says that she believes it can work. And therein lies the interpretation of the word “can,” which Nathan tries, I think, to volley back to her by showing her the classic Abbott and Costello routine “Who’s on First?” The idea is that words have different uses and meanings depending on how they’re presented. You could take Elizabeth’s statement to mean that she believes the technology can presently pull a multitude of information from a single drop of blood, or you could interpret it as her believing that the technology can eventually accomplish that goal, just not right now. For example, if somebody asks whether you can do something, you might respond by saying, “I can do that.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve done it yet, or that you’re even capable of doing it at this particular moment. I think this conversation becomes even more interesting when you weave it back into the title, You Can See Everything. Because we’re returning to that word again, and the question of whether we’re currently seeing everything or whether the “can” refers to some point in the future when we’ll finally be able to see everything. It’s a fascinating little bit of wordplay that becomes increasingly relevant as the documentary progresses.

Another effective scene involves watching Elizabeth watch The Dropout and seeing how Amanda Seyfried portrayed her. She doesn’t handle this particularly well. I found it rather odd that she hadn’t already watched a series about herself, as difficult as that experience might be, simply to understand the context of what was being presented to the public. If you don’t like Nathan Fielder, you might find this documentary a little difficult to get into, because that’s probably the only thing keeping me from calling this a perfect film. Nathan Fielder and his particular brand of comedy don’t always work for me. He very much feels like a comedian transplanting himself into a serious situation for the purposes of finding humor rather than pursuing the radical transparency that the film supposedly embraces. There’s something a little disingenuous about his demeanor and his line of questioning at times, even when he’s attempting to maintain a sense of neutrality. He’s not technically a journalist, and his work has always seemed more interested in finding the humor than finding the truth. Sometimes you can find both, but I think if Nathan is offered the opportunity to choose between the two, he’s probably going to choose the humor. Not that we haven’t had documentaries dominated by strong personalities before. Michael Moore is an unmistakable presence in every documentary he’s ever made, taking center stage regardless of whether the material actually requires him to be there. But Nathan’s particular approach can occasionally feel like he’s trying to engineer an awkward moment rather than allowing one to happen organically. That doesn’t necessarily undermine what he’s accomplishing here, but it does create a little distance between me and the material.

By the halfway point, the basic documentary is essentially over. Elizabeth goes to prison, and Nathan’s direct access to her disappears. Had Nathan and Joshua not come up with the winning idea that follows, I don’t think You Can See Everything would have gained nearly as much traction. It would have been an interesting footnote in Nathan Fielder’s transition into feature documentary filmmaking, but it certainly wouldn’t be in the Best Picture conversation. The second half is what radically changes everything. With Elizabeth incarcerated, Nathan is forced to work through her husband, Billy, who comes across as a rather questionable and occasionally controlling presence, even continuing to post on Elizabeth’s social media while she’s in prison. Then Nathan has an absolute banger of an idea. Why not bring in Amanda Seyfried, the actress who played Elizabeth Holmes in The Dropout and won an Emmy for that performance? Nathan initially does this for practical purposes, having Amanda portray Elizabeth in recreation sequences, while Christopher Abbott is brought in to portray Billy. But what begins as an exercise in reconstructing the past evolves into something considerably more fascinating, and this is where the documentary goes from being an interesting character study to one of the most remarkable films of the year.

There’s an incredibly human reaction that Amanda has to the material Nathan captured during the first half of the documentary. She’s watching footage of the actual family, seeing how they live, observing Elizabeth’s reaction to The Dropout, and eventually getting the opportunity to interact with the family and briefly speak with Elizabeth over the phone. Amanda’s presence circles back around to some fundamental questions about documentary filmmaking. What is a documentary? What is its purpose? What is the truth we’re seeking, and how far are we willing to go to find it? Here, the truth isn’t simply about how Elizabeth Holmes lives her life, but also about the other side of the equation, the story that’s already been told about her. Elizabeth wants the world to understand her life from her perspective, but Nathan chooses to bring in the actress responsible for one of the most recognizable interpretations of that life. And Amanda isn’t simply there to recreate scenes or deliver a performance. She’s processing the material herself, reflecting on the woman she portrayed, and confronting her own place in the larger cultural narrative surrounding Elizabeth Holmes. Suddenly, the documentary isn’t just examining Elizabeth. It’s examining how we tell stories about real people, how those stories shape public perception, and what happens when the person responsible for bringing a particular version of someone to life is confronted with the actual human being behind that portrayal.

This is the winning concept. This is the million-dollar idea that sends You Can See Everything over the edge and explains why A24 is actively campaigning Amanda Seyfried for Best Supporting Actress. Interestingly, that’s probably the one potential nomination I don’t entirely agree with. Amanda’s reactions are raw, authentic, and emotionally compelling, but they’re also very much her own reactions. She’s not pretending to be upset. She’s not acting as herself. She’s simply being Amanda Seyfried, processing what she’s seeing and experiencing. Yes, there are moments where she is portraying Elizabeth Holmes in the recreation sequences, so there is undeniably acting involved. But the moments that really hit home aren’t necessarily those performances. They’re the moments where Amanda is just being Amanda. To my knowledge, nobody has ever been nominated for an Academy Award for essentially playing themselves in a documentary, and her nomination would open an enormous door regarding the eligibility of documentary subjects for acting consideration. Where exactly do we draw that line? If somebody is being filmed reacting naturally to something, are they giving a performance? Or is the achievement really in the filmmaking, in capturing those moments and framing them in a way that allows the audience to connect emotionally? I think Amanda Seyfried is absolutely essential to the success of this documentary, and I understand why people are talking about her as an awards contender. I’m just not entirely convinced that what makes her contribution so remarkable is necessarily acting. But perhaps that’s another reason why this documentary is such a fascinating conversation starter. It’s challenging the boundaries of categories that we’ve traditionally treated as being relatively straightforward.

Interestingly, I’ve always separated documentaries from narrative features when compiling my favorite films of the year, because I think they’re two entirely different animals. So the thought of having You Can See Everything in my overall top 10 is something I’m still bouncing back and forth on. I genuinely need to see this film again to solidify whether it belongs among my 10 favorite films of 2026, and that alone is a significant compliment. I rarely rewatch documentaries, which is one of the reasons I’ve always separated them from narrative features. Some of my favorite narrative films are movies I’ve watched repeatedly over the course of my life, finding new things to appreciate with each viewing. I don’t think I’ve watched any documentary more than three times, at best. If I’ve watched a documentary twice, that’s a huge compliment. And I love documentaries. I just feel that with so many of them, I absorb everything they have to offer the first time out of the gate. The information has been presented, the story has been told, and while I might recommend the film enthusiastically to other people, I don’t necessarily feel compelled to revisit it myself. But You Can See Everything is different. There’s so much happening beneath the surface, so much interplay between reality, performance, perception, and the manipulation of documentary storytelling, that I suspect a second viewing might reveal things I didn’t fully appreciate the first time around. And perhaps that’s the greatest compliment I can give Nathan Fielder and Joshua Oppenheimer. They’ve made a documentary that doesn’t simply ask you to absorb information. It asks you to reconsider the very process through which that information is being delivered.

At the end of everything, after all the setups and conversations, the questions asked and answered, and the questions that remain frustratingly unresolved, once you’ve allowed the totality of this project to wash over you, you might actually feel like you’ve seen everything. Or at least everything that Nathan Fielder and Joshua Oppenheimer are willing to let you see. I think the people debating whether this documentary changes their perception of Elizabeth Holmes’ guilt or innocence have somewhat missed the point. This isn’t necessarily a film designed to exonerate her or reinforce her conviction. It’s a film about the construction of truth, the presentation of identity, and the complicated relationship between the person someone actually is and the version of that person the public has come to recognize. Elizabeth Holmes wants to control her narrative, but she’s participating in a documentary made by filmmakers who are ultimately controlling the narrative themselves. Then they introduce an actress whose previous portrayal of Elizabeth has already influenced how millions of people perceive her. It’s an extraordinary collision of competing perspectives, and the brilliance is that none of them can ever fully claim ownership of the truth. Perhaps the title is a promise that can never actually be fulfilled. Perhaps nobody can see everything, regardless of how much access they’re given or how radically transparent someone claims to be.

A24 certainly has something special here, and even I have to admit that Nathan Fielder really knocked this one out of the park. Yes, I could have used a little less of his off-kilter performance at times, and I still think his comedic instincts occasionally get in the way of the more serious material. But he and Joshua Oppenheimer took an enormous swing with an inspired concept and managed to turn what could have been a relatively conventional celebrity-adjacent documentary into something far more ambitious. I question whether the Academy’s documentary branch, which has historically been reluctant to embrace certain kinds of populist documentary filmmaking, will welcome a film like this into the Best Documentary Feature lineup. But ultimately, that might not even matter. Breaking into the Best Picture race would be a far more memorable achievement than simply landing a documentary nomination, and it would force the Academy to confront some long-standing assumptions about where documentaries belong in the larger cinematic landscape. You Can See Everything is clearly one of the best films of 2026, and much of that is owed to the presence of Amanda Seyfried, whose involvement elevates the entire project into something genuinely extraordinary. Whether or not the Academy ultimately decides to recognize her as an actress, her contribution is undeniable. Nathan Fielder promised me that I could see everything, and while this blind film critic still can’t see a damn thing, I certainly came away with a lot more to think about than I ever expected.

Fresh: 8.9/10