It's like she sidestepped in to "it was really the chemistry"

Based on that interaction, I have a theory.

I think she believed in the concept, particularly the cloud based software platform she mentioned in the film. And I think this part of the apparatus did "work", or at least would have. She had the Silicon Valley "tech" part "solved".

Problem was the chemistry knowledge required to actually analyze the samples. Girlfriend clearly knows nothing about chemistry, considering she dropped out of college freshman year.

If you follow her story, I believe she worked in a micro fluidics lab during her short stint in college. If you are familiar with microfluidics devices, they were "all the rage" when it came to research 20-ish years ago. It's kind of like a circuit but for fluids analysis - think a very small "lab on a chip". That's actually what they were called.

I think this is where she got the idea for the finger ***** of blood and the nanotainer. And I think when she refers to the "cartridges" she may have envisioned different ones (each for a different test) that you could swap in and out of the Edison machine. I don't believe any significant working cartridges were developed - maybe one or two for basic tests.

Problem is, this type of analysis just doesn't work for hundreds of different analytes in a single sample. Each thing you might want to analyze for - proteins, sugars, hormones, and whatever else is in human blood, all require different sample prep and test methods.

And a single drop of blood simply isn't enough material to meet detection levels. There's just not enough material present. You can dilute it to get the volume but then the concentration of the analytes decreases (and likely falls below detection limits).

She just dreams up great sounding ideas that have no basis in scientific reality. She might as well have said she had a rocket that could launch people to the moon from their backyard. Cool idea, but not technologically possible at this time. And she did not have the skills or knowledge to actually develop these ideas of hers.

The amount of times the movie showed her and her sociopath husband googling or watching YouTube videos on scientific topics that they have zero understanding of and repeating the info like they are experts was maddening.

But if you watch them on 4x speed you get smarter 4x faster

Saw it last night. What a fascinating movie. I've been thinking about it since leaving the theater. I just love the way the movie morphs into different genres to really question its own format and ability to get to the truth. In the end you see the good and ugly in almost every person (character?) and are left with more questions than answers.

It's shot so beautifully. It looks amazing. The music is perfect. And dare I say, there is a performance in the film that could get an Oscar, IMO.

It's my #1 movie of the year, no question.

We are capable of seeing everything.

I think that's why they included the shower scene. We literally see everything but that doesn't mean we can then translate that into understanding or conclusions because, as one character says at the end of the movie "it's complicated."

So glad Billy ain't seeing a dime.

Big Al 1992 said:

---

What am I missing? I know the story. Saw the mini series. A 3 hour documentary ( how is someone up for best supporting actress if it's a documentary) about a con artist? That is must watch with an audience? And we know how it ends.

---

This isn't another typical documentary about Elizabeth Holmes or Theranos or anything like that. Get that idea out of your head.

Rather, to start out, it's about a deadpan, millennial / modern day Andy Kaufman-like figure (Nathan Fielder) who lives with Holmes and her sociopathic partner in the 34 days leading up to her going to prison for 11 years.

Basically, Fielder is known for being methodical/unbreakable in the way he kind of screws with people for laughs. And Holmes is obviously known for being one of the most infamous liars of the century. While living with her, Fielder tries to understand her psyche / why she did what she did, and to essentially get her to admit that she lied, etc... yet Holmes doesn't budge an itch. To that end, it's like watching an unbreakable force meet an immovable object. If Fielder is Batman, Holmes is his Joker. He's finally met his match.

But then, somehow, someway, Holmes' partner ends up being even more of a sociopath than she is, and morphs into one of the greatest, most hatable on-screen villains in years. And just watching Fielder vs. the two of them, while living with them (and their two young children), while the days count down to her going to prison... is just so incredible - and hilarious - to see.

But that's only the first half of the doc.

Because a FOURTH element is then introduced - the big surprise/twist of the movie, which plays into the whole "Best Supporting Actress" thing, without giving anything else away - that takes the entire thing to a whole other almost thriller/detective story level, which is absolutely riveting - and again, hilarious - to watch unfold.

Just trust us. Trust the 100% RT score. Trust the endless effusive praise from general audiences like nothing else I've seen before. Be part of the phenomenon, mitigate your risk of being spoiled, and go see it ASAP if you can. Especially if you've seen all of that earlier content, which will make this experience all the more rich and memorable. I promise.

Outstanding summary!

Loved it. What a ride.


Also, lay off the coke, Captain Sniffles

Billy was right about the eggs

Tobias Funke said:

---

Loved it. What a ride.


Also, lay off the coke, Captain Sniffles

---

I'm listening to a podcast about the movie that totally calls this out. I didn't even notice.