The new documentary You Can See Everything has put Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes back at the center of technology-industry debate. Directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, the film took in $15 million during its opening weekend, while viewers and technology figures remain divided over both Holmes's public image and the filmmakers' approach.
Holmes was convicted of defrauding investors. Theranos, the blood-testing company she founded, claimed that hundreds of diagnostic tests could be performed using only a small amount of blood. Holmes has consistently denied wrongdoing. The documentary has renewed discussion about founder personas, Silicon Valley's start-up culture and the lasting impression of the Theranos scandal. This article does not discuss the film's plot.
Familiar figures, uneasy reactions
John LeB, a San Francisco investor and former chief executive of Limit, said on X that the film reminded him of a gathering in 2019, when he met Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans. Seeing the two appear on the big screen was surprising and felt strange, he wrote. Evans stood out in particular: LeB said he had not thought about him for seven years.
Nick White, a former software engineer who now streams on YouTube and Kick, said the film reminded him why he left the technology industry. In posts on X, he criticized what he described as a culture filled with narcissistic and overconfident people who genuinely believe they are geniuses.
Those reactions broadened the discussion from Holmes herself to the technology start-up world's views of ambition, authority and self-worth. They remain individual impressions rather than a unified view of the industry.
Before the theatrical release, artificial-intelligence start-up Extend rented a cinema in Manhattan and invited members of the technology community to an advance screening. The audience did not reach a common judgment on Holmes. Some viewed her as an internet meme, while others used extremely negative language to describe her. A number of viewers said they were unexpectedly sympathetic toward her after watching the film.
Praise for the film, criticism of its pace
Musician Grimes called the documentary "innovative" and described its second half as "artistic futurism." The anonymous X user roon, who has followed Silicon Valley for years, praised Fielder's filmmaking talent as almost impossible to comprehend, but said that talent had been applied to a relatively dull subject.
John Carreyrou, the former Wall Street Journal investigative reporter whose work on Theranos helped expose problems at the company, gave the film a positive assessment and called it "a great movie."
Carreyrou also wrote a column for The New York Times discussing his envy that Fielder and Oppenheim were able to gain access to Holmes, along with his concerns about personal safety. On X, he called the documentary "the best movie," echoing early Oscar speculation that emerged after its release.
Theranos case draws renewed attention
The discussion combines questions about the documentary's narrative and artistic choices with the more complicated memory of the Holmes case within the technology industry. Theranos attracted investors with claims about its blood-testing technology, but the fraud charges and Holmes's conviction ultimately became central facts in the company's history.
The film's release has not produced a consistent public view of Holmes. Responses still range from strong condemnation to sympathy. The clearest market measure so far is the documentary's $15 million opening-weekend box office; technology figures remain divided over whether the film succeeds artistically and whether it merits the attention it has received.