You can see everything 2026

Buzz and box office don’t always line up, but You Can See Everything made an extraordinary $15 million from only 855 screens, with over 2,000 sellout showings over the weekend, according to A24.

It also had the biggest opening for a film playing on under 1,000 screens since Borat opened to $26.5 million in 2006, and the biggest nonmusic documentary opening in two decades, since Fahrenheit 9/11 made nearly $24 million from 868 theaters. Those numbers do not account for inflation.

Like other hits this year, like the Gen-Z driven Backrooms and Obsession, ticket sales for You Can See Everything were driven by a largely younger audience. Over 70 percent of the opening weekend crowd was under 35.

The film, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, was made in secret over three years. Fielder spent over a month with the disgraced Theranos founder and her family, including two young children and partner Billy Evans, in her final days before reporting to federal prison.

The reviews have been extremely positive, with 99 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and 99 on Metacritic. It also got an unprecedented 91 percent “definite recommend” from audiences, according to PostTrak exit polls.

“You Can See Everything” just saw the biggest box office opening for a documentary in more than 20 years.

Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s genre-bending film about disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes made more than $15 million in ticket sales.

Many weekend screenings in cities like New York and Los Angeles were sold out despite the three-hour running time.

The film’s distributor, A24, called it “one of the largest limited-release openings of the 21st century.”

“You Can See Everything” opened on fewer than 900 screens following a jaw-dropping surprise premiere at the Telluride Film Festival last month.

Fielder and Oppenheim worked on the project in secret for years, filming with Holmes and her partner Billy Evans in the weeks before Holmes went to prison in 2023. Holmes was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud Theranos investors, but she tried to convince the filmmakers of her innocence.

Fielder, who appears on camera interviewing Holmes and Evans, takes the film in unexpected directions, thrilling critics and theatergoers. The film has an extraordinarily high 99% “fresh score” on Rotten Tomatoes and a record-high 4.8 rating on Letterboxd.

The film “has rewritten the rules of documentaries as we know them,” CNN’s David Mack wrote in an opening-day article about why it “absolutely lives up to the hype.”

Theatergoers clearly wanted to find out for themselves. “You Can See Everything” enjoyed the biggest opening for a film on fewer than 1,000 screens since “Borat” in 2006. It was the biggest non-music documentary since “Fahrenheit 9/11” in 2004.

The other big documentary this year — Amazon MGM’s “Melania” film about the first lady — premiered on twice as many screens and made less than half as much money, $7.1 million, in its opening weekend. And “Melania” was considered a box-office success in documentary terms when it was released.

“You Can See Everything” is in a category of its own. Some film critics have predicted it will receive a Best Picture nomination. It opens nationwide next weekend, sure to benefit from all the buzz from its opening weekend.

Overall, “You Can See Everything” finished No. 2 at the weekend box office in North America. Paramount’s video game adaptation of “Street Fighter” topped the box office with an estimated $30 million in ticket sales from 3,575 screens. Paramount is owned by Skydance, which also owns CNN.

You Can See Everything reportedly cost under $7 million to make and less than $10 million to market.

“Everybody underestimated the movie, because on paper this is like, wait, a three-hour documentary?” said Paul Dergarabedian, the head of marketplace trends for Rentrak. “But he [Fielder] is a huge draw, and he has a huge following on social media, and then Elizabeth Holmes is just a character that you couldn’t even make up. It’s stranger than fiction, and that’s really compelling.”

‘Street Fighter’ knocks out ‘Whalefall’

Street Fighter topped the charts as expected with a $51 million global opening, including $20 million from international showings. The movie starring Callina Liang, Noah Centineo and Andrew Koji cost a reported $82 million to make, not accounting for marketing and promotion. Audiences were 69 percent male.

Both Street Fighter and You Can See Everything may have contributed to Whalefall’s relative failure this weekend. The $60 million survival thriller starring Austin Abrams and Josh Brolin made $8 million from 3,065 locations in the US and Canada, despite being better reviewed than Street Fighter. With $9.5 million from international showings, the Disney release hd a $17.5 million global launch.

Whalefall opened in fourth place, behind the Jessica Chastain horror Other Mommy. The Universal Pictures release added $8.4 million in its second weekend, bringing its domestic total to $44.9 million.

Fifth place went to Sense and Sensibility, which earned an estimated $7.3 million from 2,545 theaters. The well-reviewed Austen adaptation starring Daisy Edgar-Jones drew a predominantly younger (58 percent between the ages of 14 and 18) and female crowd (84 percent). It also got the strongest CinemaScore of the week (A-).

Warner Bros. Clockwork also released a restored presentation of Ken Russell’s 1971 film The Devils in 350 locations, where it made $1.6 million. It’s the first release from the studio’s specialty label.

‘Musk’ documentary facing advertising blocks and Netflix shares box office for ‘La Bola Negra’

Alex Gibney’s Elon Musk documentary Musk also expanded to 472 screens in the US and Canada, where it made $306,702.

The film, which runs nearly four hours, has faced issues advertising on major social media platforms including X, which Musk owns, and TikTok, according to distributor Bleecker Street, which said TikTok this weekend permanently suspended the film’s ad account.

Netflix also shared ticket sales for the first time for the queer Spanish epic La Bola Negra, which made $277,500 from four locations this weekend.

The streamer has not historically reported box office for its theatrical releases, but this film is breaking new ground as it’s being positioned as a possible best picture contender. It will be in theaters for 47 days before it will be available to watch on Netflix.

According to Rentrak, the weekend overall generated about $101.6 million in ticket sales, up 45 percent from the same weekend last year. The year to date stands at $8.2 billion, which is up almost 20 percent from 2025.

convicted fraudster Elizabeth Holmes invites film-makers Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim into her home in a supposed act of “radical transparency”. Holmes is filmed, along with her partner, Billy Evans, and their two young children, in the weeks before starting a prison sentence for defrauding Theranos investors. “The best way for people to see who she is,” Evans says, “is to give as much access as possible into our daily lives”. It may also be the best way to market “Theranos 2.0”, which the couple are working on during filming. But the documentary questions whether Holmes is presenting her authentic self or a manufactured persona. Fielder speaks for the audience when he asks Holmes in a tense exchange whether she’s “being real” with him. “I’m always being real,” she says.

That question of authenticity is at the heart of documentary film-making. You Can See Everything is as much about the ambiguous relationship between film-maker and subject as it is about Holmes herself. There is often a power struggle over narrative control in documentaries, with both sides of the dynamic wanting different outcomes from the final film. Watching You Can See Everything inevitably prompts the question: why would Holmes, days before she heads to jail, invite the scrutiny of a film crew?

es, think a documentary will help rebuild their reputation after public disgrace. When Anthony Weiner, who resigned from Congress after tweeting a photo of his bulging groin, tried to stage a professional comeback with a New York mayoral bid, he allowed cameras to film the journey. Only, he had more to hide: when further sex scandals emerged, his campaign went from a story of public redemption to innuendo-laden humiliation. And all the while, the cameras kept rolling. Weiner is a prime example of a subject losing control of the narrative.Weiner may have wanted a sympathetic portrayal, but he should have known that film-makers always have their own agendas. In the book The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm reflects on the relationship between journalists and their subjects: “The subject becomes a kind of child of the writer, regarding him as a permissive, all-accepting, all-forgiving mother, and expecting the book to be written by her. Of course, the book is written by the strict, all-noticing, unforgiving father.” The same is surely true of the documentarian.

When Jackie and David Siegel allowed Lauren Greenfield to film their attempt to build a modern-day Versailles in Florida, the director wasn’t giving them free PR. Rather, with The Queen of Versailles, Greenfield was interested in the corrosive effects of extreme wealth. The Siegels agreed to be filmed because they were proud of their success. When their dream collapsed following the 2008 financial crash, The Queen of Versailles turned from a story of Xanadu-like grandeur to one of hubristic overreach. David later sued Lauren – unsuccessfully – for defamation, but he should have known from the beginning: it may have been his story, but it was never his film.

A few years after Versailles, Greenfield made The Kingmaker, about former first lady of the Philippines Imelda Marcos and her attempt to return the family to power. From the beginning of the film, Greenfield said, there was a power struggle over who was telling the story. Marcos, known for her lavish lifestyle during her husband’s brutal rule, understood the power of optics. In a children’s cancer ward, she hands out money to children in a public display of compassion. “Perception is real,” Marcos says in the film, “and the truth is not.”

Some people agree to projects believing they will have editorial control. Idi Amin gave Barbet Schroeder unprecedented access after the director essentially promised that they would make the film together. But Amin was unhappy with General Idi Amin Dada: A Self Portrait and demanded some footage be cut, rounding up more than 100 French residents in Uganda and holding them hostage until his demands were met. Schroeder agreed. It helps to be as ruthless as Amin if you want final cut.

Documentaries are often about the past, but some of cinema’s most memorable moments show people acting violently in the present, fully aware that they are being filmed. Frederick Wiseman’s austere films show abuse in psychiatric institutions (Titicut Follies) and horrific police violence (Law and Order). Why did people do unspeakable things in front of a camera? “People basically go about their business,” Wiseman told an interviewer, “and the presence of the camera doesn’t have much, if any effect on their behaviour.”

Thirty-four days before she’s sent to prison, notorious Silicon Valley founder Elizabeth Holmes invites a skeptical film crew to document her every move. What begins as an intimate portrait of an enigmatic felon becomes a mind-bending three-year journey into the abyss.

You Can See Everything, the new documentary(-ish?) film about convicted fraudster Elizabeth Holmes, is best treated as two movies stitched together. The first 90 minutes or so, filmed before she went to prison, are a relatively straightforward chronicle of filmmaker Nathan Fielder and his collaborator Lance Oppenheim documenting Holmes' last month at home with her partner, Billy Evans, and their kids. The other 90 minutes are far more experimental, as the story picks up two years later without Holmes available to film. Fielder and Oppenheim have treated their approach to that part of the story as secret; I will not spoil it.

Substantively, the film makes a much better impression as a blend of reality and invention — and not only in the ways it announces itself to be — than it does as a true documentary. If you don't expect to be able to square it with the widely reported facts about its subject, then You Can See Everything is compelling and fascinating, and it contains moments of real insight. (The best one, believe it or not, involves scrambled eggs.) Perhaps ironically, given its title, the best way to enjoy the film is not to look too closely.

That's going to be tough for people who, like me, are Theranos completists. There is a tremendous amount of reporting and investigating that has been done about Theranos, and about Elizabeth Holmes specifically. Still, Fielder, who develops a close bond with Holmes over the course of the film, seemingly chooses to trust his gut and his own conversations with her over all else, and he develops a sort of chin-stroking inability to decide what to think about what she did. He also has an understandable suspicion that she might be trying to play him, at least early on. This is familiar territory for people who encounter her: Even in Alex Gibney's excellent 2019 documentary The Inventor, the question of Holmes' intent vexes some people. Did she convince herself that a sort of "fake it till you make it" approach wasn't exactly lying? Was she so able to fool other people that she fooled herself as well?

You Can See Everything presents some of these same questions, but it stacks the deck in answering them by setting aside some of the evidence that would seem, at the very least, to shed some light. For instance, when Holmes tells Fielder she never lies — never has lied in her life — he is skeptical, but he responds by asking her about things like white lies. Surely, she has told a white lie now and then? Gotten out of a social obligation by pretending to be sick? No? She seems open to the possibility she might have, in those very limited situations, but certainly never, ever about anything of any significance.

As he works through what to make of this claim on her part, Fielder wonders whether she might, in fact, not have lied to her investors as such. For instance, he wonders if a misunderstanding over the word "can" might exonerate her, and whether the rah-rah statements she made about the capabilities of her technology were therefore not intentionally false. Maybe, he wonders, she was just using the word "can" one way and her investors heard it a different way. Maybe it's because, as Billy says, she thinks differently. (I should be clear here that these are things that "Nathan Fielder" the on-screen character wonders. Whether the filmmaker Nathan Fielder, inside his own mind, actually wonders about these things is impossible to know, as is the distance between those two Fielders.)

The problem with spending so much time on this narrow question of what "can" means is that this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only thing, or the only kind of thing, that Elizabeth Holmes was accused of lying about. For example, at her trial, Holmes was accused of falsely claiming that her technology was being used by the military on the battlefield, a statement that doesn't lend itself nearly so easily to a linguistic "it depends on your definition of 'can'"-type analysis. But at least in the final cut, Fielder doesn't ask about these other, more concrete untruths and how they might complicate her wide-eyed insistence that she never lies on purpose.

Posted on 2026/10/22 10:10 AM