Weekend Mullings - You Can See Everything | Sense and Sensibility

It's funny how You Can See Everything made me realize Nathan Fielder has always been a documentarian. His TV shows Nathan For You and The Rehearsal were both, more or less, comedic reality shows, but they were also unconventional documentaries. And You Can See Everything is nothing if not unconventional. Fielder, along with co-director Lance Oppenheim, have created something beyond documentary. It deserves a genre all its own.

It's also a movie that offers some genuine surprises, which I will not give away. On the surface, it is a film meant to document the last few weeks of Elizabeth Holmes' life before she must report to prison to serve an 11-year sentence, the goal ostensibly being, if people can see the real her, they will realize she's actually innocent, and never lied to or defrauded anyone.

Just why her husband, Billy Evans, chose Nathan Fielder for the project is never made entirely clear, but Evans alludes to the fact that he thinks Fielder looks at the world "differently," and so does Holmes, so Fielder's the perfect guy to help convey that.

Evans isn't wrong about Nathan Fielder. He definitely does see the world differently. But his insight is perhaps the exact opposite of what Holmes was hoping for. The natural insistence that Fielder has, to pry, and push - which is usually used for comedic effect - also proves to be his greatest gift when it comes to straightforward documentary. It is delightfully satisfying to see him, again and again, press for explanations to answers that don't seem clear, and to push his subjects into actually saying what they are thinking and feeling at any given time.

Fielder ends up living with the couple and their two young children for the last few weeks of her freedom, trying to figure out the answer to the ultimate question: Was Elizabeth Holmes a master manipulator? Was she manipulated by others? Or was it both?

And then she goes to prison.

And you might think, OK, once the subject of this documentary is no longer available for any kind of screen time or interviews, where could this film possibly go? If you are at all familiar with Fielder's television work, you may guess how he handles it. But you can not possibly be prepared for just how brilliantly he does it. 

It's the second half of this almost three hour movie that propels it into the realm of masterpiece, and it's also this second half that I am not willing to discuss or spoil in any way. You Can See Everything for yourself.

While there have been several adaptations of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, for whatever reason, it hasn't been adapted as many times as Pride and Prejudice has. I think that's one reason the 1995 version, starring and written by Emma Thompson, has maintained such popularity. It never had much competition. 

I am sure there are fans of the book (which I haven't read) and fans of the 1995 film (which I recently re-watched) who will take umbrage at this slightly darker (both figuratively and literally) version. But I enjoyed it immensely, and certainly think there's room for both in an uncrowded field.

The homes and costumes in this version are much more rustic, which I suppose may be a disappointment to those who come to costume dramas for...costumes. But their simplicity made the story feel a lot more realistic to me, which I appreciated. (I will say, I hated that the women always seem to have their hair down, and I do NOT know what was up with some of those insane bonnets.)

Daisy Edgar-Jones and Esmé Creed-Miles as sisters Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, bring a little more intensity and drama to their roles, at least in comparison to the 1995 film. And as a whole, this version is more interested in passion and longing than it is in comedy (though it is very funny at times, especially any time Fiona Shaw shows up as Mrs. Jennings). The world in this Sense and Sensibility is perhaps not one I would fantasize about living in, but it's one that felt genuine and romantic, which lends itself to its own kind of pleasant fantasy.

Weekend Mullings - The Social Reckoning

Aaron Sorkin's The Social Reckoning is, without a doubt, an important story, and even at times a compelling story. But the film manages to make this tale of recent history feel both outdated and, ultimately, rather pointless. Facebook feels like a dying brand (crocodile tears over that) and there are much bigger dangers waiting in the wings to take over and make our lives miserable.

Essentially a movie about journalism, it invites obvious comparisons to All the President's Men, perhaps the pinnacle of journalists-as-heroes cinema. Jeremy Allen White stars as Jeff Horwitz, newly hired by the San Francisco branch of the Wall Street Journal to cover Facebook, despite his being pretty tech averse in general. He is eventually contacted by Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook employee on the Civic Integrity Team who has begun to have concerns about the growing toxicity of the platform.

Haugen is a Facebook true believer, who hopes that by exposing what is happening - essentially that the company is putting profit over safety - Facebook will change. Madison portrays Haugen as you may expect your average tech worker to be: incredibly smart, and socially awkward. But there's also an added level of extreme toughness and guile that makes her a compelling heroine...

 ...which Sorkin manages to almost completely undermine by having Haugen show up to meetings with Horwitz dressed like some kind of call girl. Her explanation is it's so if she runs into anyone from work they will think she's on a date. I don't know if this actually happened or not, but it all seems like at least, an exaggeration (she basically shows up in lingerie for one meeting), or at most, a gross fictionalization (there's multiple unnecessarily skimpy outfits). But I guess Sorkin just couldn't bear to let the Anora side of Mikey Madison fade completely.

The Social Reckoning has a lot of the fast and snappy dialogue you'd expect from a Sorkin screenplay (Betty Gilpin, as Horwitz's editor, has the most fun with it), but the movie sorely lacks the kinetic energy of David Fincher's direction in The Social Network, and the now practically iconic score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. 

It's a potentially exciting story told in the most boring way possible, and not helped by its non-linear timeline, which jumps back and forth between 2019 and 2021, and scenes featuring Jeremy Strong's impersonation of Mark Zuckerberg, which manages to make both of them look like total weirdos.

Maybe if this movie had come out in 2022, it may have felt as urgent and timely as The Social Network did. But the resolution in The Social Reckoning is like if All the Presidents Men ended with Nixon still the President, and no repercussions for any of the key Watergate players. As important as the "Facebook Files" and Frances Haugen's testimony were, it ultimately resulted in Facebook...changing it's name to Meta.

Weekend Mullings - Digger | Verity

Digger is a difficult movie to review, because to discuss why it ultimately does not work as either a drama or a satire, you need to discuss the one aspect of the movie that shouldn't be discussed, as it is film's only real surprise, and the one thing that truly propels it into the realm of satire.

And it's not even something that really works, or is that good of a surprise. But I do believe that if you're going to see Digger, you benefit greatly from staying unspoiled. So I will avoid that topic best I can. (I will add, the trailer above is a rare one that doesn't actually spoil much, so feel free to watch it without worry.) 

Tom Cruise stars - in age makeup to make him look more like a 64 old man than the 64 year old man he actually is - as Digger Rockwell, an oil tycoon with immense wealth and power who unleashes a global catastrophe as a result of his own ego and greed. 

From the beginning of the film, we can tell things are a little off, and that what we are watching is satirical. Or at least trying to be. Digger wakes up next to what appears to be the one living thing he loves most in the world: a white cat that is very clearly barely alive (and also very unconvincing at ever being an actual, living cat; this is eventually explained). That he can dote on this pet, but not seem to care much about the potential loss of millions of lives sets off the "comedic" tone of the film.

It's furthered by the over the top performance from the likes of John Goodman, as the President of the United States (his constant reference to his "ass cancer" is, I guess, supposed to be funny), and Riz Ahmed as the scientist who does his best to warn of the impending catastrophe, to mainly deaf ears (his descent into drunken madness plays better than most of the film's other attempts at comedy). Tom Cruise is also not playing a subtle character. His Digger is closer to his roles in Magnolia and Tropic Thunder than it is to Ethan Hunt. For the most part, it works. But when it doesn't, it really doesn't.

The film is very clearly trying to be the Dr. Strangelove of climate disaster movies, with its bombastic performances, low-angle close-ups, and multiple scenes shot using deep focus in tight quarters. A lot of the film's artifice is beautiful. But the comedy very rarely hits.

There's a moment where the President and his a roomful of cabinet members and military, are watching a presentation outlining the potential catastrophe a runaway glacier named Judy could cause on the coastlines of multiple European countries. One cabinet member calls the glacier a cunt, and the President admonishes him. "Do not use that kind of language. There are women present!" Everyone pauses to look around and acknowledge these women, but of course, there are no actual women in that cabinet meeting.

It's a funny moment. We in the audience laughs. But then the entire meeting room bursts into laughter because they are well aware there aren't any women in there. They're just a bunch of assholes laughing at their own misogyny. And that's not nearly as funny. As a result, the audience's laughter stops. It perfectly encapsulates how easy it is to completely murder a joke, something the film manages to do several more times.

And for a movie that is, I think, trying to make a point about the catharsis art can bring to historical tragedies, it needs moments like that to hit the right way. Because if they don't, you're just pouring salt into historical wounds.

This is the fifth movie Anne Hathaway has appeared in this year, and unfortunately she is not ending 2026 on a high note. Verity, like Digger, is a movie that benefits greatly from a lack of spoilage. Not so much because spoiling it ruins the fun of its surprises. It's more that talking about the twists would just reveal what an extremely stupid movie it is. 

Which is not to deride all stupid movies; stupid can be fun! Some of the stupidest fun movies of the 1990's were the erotic thrillers Verity is so obviously trying to emulate. But Verity's biggest sin is that it is both stupid and boring.

Anne Hathaway stars as Verity Crawford, the author of a popular series of thrillers centered on evil protagonists. Dakota Johnson is Lowen Ashleigh (these names!), a considerably less popular author who is hired to ghost write Verity's final book, as she has become incapacitated after a car accident. John Hartnett is Jeremy, Verity's handsome and sad husband, who Lowen ultimately can't resist. And Brady Wagner is Crew, Verity and Jeremy's young son. (I am only including him here to point that he also has a ridiculous name.)

Lowen starts to suspect Verity may not actually be the veritable vegetable she appears to be. And after the discovery of a secret autobiography, she also begins to suspect Verity may not have been very nice.

Secrets come out, the truth is not what it seems, and lives are in danger, and all of this takes an inordinately long time to be revealed. The movie does not earn its almost two hour running time. In the end, the movie wants us to question what "truth" actually means. Instead I was just asking myself, "HOW DOES ANY OF WHAT I JUST WATCHED MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL??"