Finally watched “You Can See Everything” yesterday night, I thought my husband’s take on our group chat was pretty accurate Cyril: I haven’t read everything yet, and I think there are lots of questions we could ask, but deep down, if my life depended on it, I’d say she’s dishonest and manipulative, and fully aware of it. Cyril: And Nathan is manipulative too, because something I realize bothered me throughout the first two hours is that he doesn't ask the important questions at all (or rather, he edited them out). He focuses on the machine's claim that it "can do the tests," but there are ten other things that would be more relevant to dig into. For example, did she know the tests were unreliable? Why did the whistleblowers turn against her? Even if Carreyrou was being pushed by competitors, was he actually wrong in his investigation? Things like that. Cyril: So my conclusion is that it's a hybrid of fiction and documentary that doesn't really have the power to teach us anything about Holmes's true nature. But it's a fascinating piece of filmmaking.