You Can See Everything Is A Social Experiment To See If You're A Lion Or A Sheep

JOHN G MABANGLO. Shutterstock Images.

There is some heavy Oscar buzz for this documentary by Nathan Fielder called You Can See Everything which shows polarizing former billionaire Elizabeth Holmes in her home for 34 days before she heads to jail. There are thoughts it could be the first documentary to win best picture at the Oscars.

Billed as an Elizabeth Holmes documentary, this takes a bit of a turn and for a three hour movie, it struggles to come to a finite conclusion. Which the sheep in the room would argue is the point. Showing blind love to cult hero, Nathan Fielder, it boggles my mind how people come away from this movie enjoying it.

SPOILER ALERTS BELOW

I gave it a 2.3/10 for a couple simple reasons:

- It was very boring

- It felt pretentious

- The movie was wayyyy too long, especially for not having a real conclusion

- It's not rewatchable in the slightest

Listen, I'm getting crushed for not liking this, while almost all of the commenters saying they knew I wouldn't like it. But the bottom line is, I go to the movies to eat popcorn and to be entertained. I sure as shit at some popcorn on Saturday night, but I was not entertained in the slightest.

The first hour of the movie is dissecting if Elizabeth Holmes used the word "I" or "They" in an interview with the New York Times. Yawn!

I would've liked to see a full movie on Elizabeth Holmes, but that wasn't what Fielder was going for. The inclusion of another actress felt a little forced and mainly unnecessary aside from Fielder putting his signature flavor on the film. The follow up with Holmes to interview her after being incarcerated was TWO YEARS with the excuse that, it's first come, first served, and it gets crowded as actual excuses about why it took so long. 

Word has it that after taping with Holmes for a little over a month, Fielder didn't think they had much and was going to kill the project. It was after her partner, Billy started some online tirades that they decided to revisit that decision. To be honest, I think they should've left it on the cutting room floor.

This movie has 98% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes and 96% audience. Clearly it's a well liked movie. But why? It's hard to imagine a longer, more boring movie than this. So the only logical conclusion is that flocks of people are blindly praising Fielder's latest work to seem sharp. 

I am not afraid to be on an island with a take, I can think for myself. I truly believe this movie sucks. Avoid if you can, but I totally understand the buzz and wanting to be apart of the conversation. 

Now feel free to call me a buffoon and much worse in the comments because I didn't get it.