Well, I have to agree with the others who have expressed little interest in this movie. Why would I want to watch a known convicted fraudster try to outfox someone new for three hours? I already know plenty about the case, and she seems unequivocally guilty. We already know she’s pretty good at confidence scams, what’s the attraction with watching her try to do that again?
I guess you will never know. It’s the kind of film that defies your expectations.
Ehh, I might someday know, but it will probably be sometime when it’s on cable. So far, I’m not seeing the great attraction.
Either way it might not be the movie for you, but I’m just telling you that your attitude is the one I went in with, and I came out thinking it was a wildly different movie from what I expected. Among other things it’s not three hours of her trying to outfox him, but I think the more spoilers you get in advance to disprove that point, the less impact the movie might have for you.
ETA this is also one where are the theatrical experience is likely much stronger than a home viewing experience. I’m not trying to talk you into seeing it, I’m just answering your comment.
Yeah, the insistence of not knowing the “twist” being central to the viewing of the movie is most of what is making me think “whatever” in regard to this film. A great film that is worth my time is one that will still captivate me even if I know the whole story going into it, and it will reveal new ideas upon repeated viewings. That includes documentaries. So, it seems that this movie probably wasn’t made for me.
And this film does that. It will definitely give you different things to think about on second viewing. But that doesn’t mean that seeing it unaware of what will happen isn’t an optimal and unique experience.
Don’t see it if you don’t want to. But this is one of the best reviewed films of all time and IMO you are missing out by being so steadfastly against it.
Just curious…why would you read a 60+ post thread about a film that holds little interest for you?
Meh, I’m not steadfastly against it, but I am skeptical about needing to go out of my way to view it. The number of films that have been raved about in the last 25 or so years that I’ve been disappointed with when I finally saw them is large. Again, if I see it, I’ll catch it when it’s shown on cable.
Because it’s being raved about, and I was curious about what the attraction was, given that the subject has been pretty thoroughly covered. If it seemed that the raves were merited, I might go out of my way to see it. I haven’t seen any description that makes that the case. But then again, I’m not everyone. It wouldn’t be the first film that was made that I wasn’t the target audience for, and it surely won’t be the last.
I agree with this, and I’d also say, in my opinion, this movie will only grow with repeated viewings.
Folks tend to latch onto the idea of “ooh, there’s a twist/surprise” and exaggerate its importance.
There’s not a twist in this movie. There are things you know mid-way that you did not know at the beginning, and things you know at the end that you did not know in the middle. There are moments when you cannot predict what will happen next. That’s it.
Don’t let people leaning into the modern discourse that “spoilers ruin everything” confuse you into thinking that this movie rests its laurels on a gotcha ya moment. Knowing the whole thing will change subsequent experiences with it. As is true with all art. No more and no less. (And that’s another manifestation of a theme in the film… a kind of quantum “observing things changes them”).
All that said, if you’re like me, the fact that anyone or ones are spending so much time talking about it is enough to leave you skeptical and avoidant, regardless of the content of the conversation 
That’s fine too.
I’m still on the “not seeing it” side of the fence on this one. Reading about it make me question it’s authenticity and wonder if it’s all just a manufactured piece ala Andy Kaufman. Not really a documentary but more shot some footage of a notorious figure and with their permission built a narrative. Feels as real as a reality tv show.
I’m leaning towards seeing it. Mostly because everyone is talking about it, and I’d like to be part of the popular conversation. And hey, if it’s that good a movie, maybe I’ll like it, too. But i suspect the film will annoy me. Certainly, the descriptions I’ve read here of Fielder’s other work sounds annoying.
In fact, i bought tickets for this afternoon’s matinee.
See it or don’t but it’s definitely not anything like that.
I disagree with this. I don’t think anyone in this thread is saying the movie is ruined or not worth seeing if you know what’s coming…what we’re saying (at least I’m saying) is that you might lose some of the fun you might otherwise experience organically. It’s not binary.
On that note, my son and I are planning to see it again, together this time. It will be nice to have someone to talk to about it!
It’s not a major twist like The Usual Suspects. It’s just a weird turn at one point.
To me, at least, I find the idea of pointing out the amount of deception/masking/lack of self-awareness in the world today, to be boring and easy. It’s like pointing out, for the 83rd quadrillionth time, that people lie. Especially in this “post truth era”.
For me, it’s so much easier and unsurprising, to find a liar and delve into the why/how they lie than to actually do the work and find a modicum of truth.
That’s why I think this movie holds no interest to me. Who the fuck cares what lies Elizabeth Holmes tells herself/Fielder/ or the world? She’s one of millions of people who lie/delude themselves for their own gain (monetarily or emotional). And who cares what Fielder tries to accomplish with his footage/editing. He’s happily an unreliable source.
I get the whole “of a moment”/post truth crap, but I dont see why it’s interesting in the least.
Maybe it’s having a career of being lied to, but I have no interest in the movie and don’t get (outside of the influencer/celebrity culture I dont get), why this seems to grab anyone’s attention.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, there are some clouds I need to shake my fist at.
I meant “folks in the world in general”, not necessarily in this thread. Or rather, I was responding to the statement that “the insistence of not knowing the ‘twist’ [is] central to the viewing of the movie.” Taking that at face value, my response was simply meant to say that whoever is insisting that is wrong. Wherever they are.
But, that said, my point is that all movies (or books, or whatever) might lose some of the fun you might otherwise experience organically if you are given the roadmap in advance (though having foreknowledge might also generate other sources of fun that do not exist if you go in blank). This movie isn’t in a special class of art where that is uniquely true.
@scabpicker has picked up the idea that this movie has a twist, and that experiencing the twist is core to the movie being good. My position is that it is almost universally true that any art when experienced for the first time will contain things that are novel or unexpected, that will not be novel or unexpected in subsequent experiences. That’s true for this film. The enjoyment of the movie does not rely on that first-time novelty, even if that novelty is in fact there to experience.
I have now learned a whole bunch about what actually went on at Theranos and I am so excited to see it a second time. I was a blank slate the first time. It’s going to be a totally different experience.
The Rehearsal continues to be fantastic. I didn’t expect that it would have continuity. That adds so many more layers to the show. (The last episode I watched, The Fielder Method, actually got me teared up.)
If people don’t want to see something they will continue to come up with reasons long after their initial concerns are addressed, so that is probably a losing game.
I think it’s just, I don’t want the film to be misrepresented.
What do you do when the truth is incredibly difficult to find, and when you uncover truths you didn’t expect and have to figure out what to do with that information? Morally? Artistically?