The Musk Documentary Opens Today at Nearly Four Hours, and Elon's Legal Threats Sold It Better Than Any Trailer

There are two ways to sell a four-hour documentary about one of the richest men on Earth. You can spend a fortune on trailers, or you can have his lawyer send a letter. I am not saying anyone planned it that way. I am saying that this week, with the film opening in two cities, a lot more people are talking about Musk than would be talking about a four-hour documentary that nobody had threatened to sue.

Before anything else, let me be straight with you: I have not seen this film. It has only played festivals, and today it opens on a handful of screens. Everything below about what is in the movie comes from its press materials, from critics who have seen it and from reporting on the dispute around it, and I tell you who said what. The opinions are mine, and I flag them as opinions. I am also not a lawyer, so when the legal part comes up, I am reporting what lawyers said, not giving you legal advice.

What is confirmed about the Musk documentary

Here is the solid ground. Musk is directed by Oscar-winning documentarian Alex Gibney and produced by Jigsaw Productions with HBO Documentary Films, among others. It had its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival in early September and later played Toronto. Elon Musk declined to take part, so the film uses a digital stand-in that speaks quotes from his past public appearances. The people who do talk include his first wife, Justine Musk, and Ashley St. Clair, a former conservative influencer who has a child with Musk and who, in the film, calls him a "nuke."

One more date worth knowing: the film was originally set for Oct. 16 and moved up a week to Oct. 9. Gizmodo, citing Deadline, reported the move came because of "intense public interest." Keep that phrase in mind, because I come back to it. Also opening in the same stretch is Sony's The Social Reckoning, another big-tech story, which we covered here. It is a strange weekend when two of the biggest theater conversations are about billionaires and the platforms they run.

The legal fight: what the lawyer's letter says and what the law says

The dispute centers on a set of private texts. NPR reported on Sept. 10 that St. Clair shared messages from October 2024, before that year's election, in which Musk wrote that "tomorrow we unleash the anomaly in the matrix" and, when she asked what he meant, said he had "over 10 thousand lasers in space right now." NPR said it obtained and authenticated the texts. In the film, according to NPR, Gibney asks St. Clair whether the texts refer to SpaceX satellites, and she answers, "I don't know where else he has lasers."

Musk's attorney, Alex Spiro, then wrote to Jigsaw Productions. As NPR describes the letter, it argues that the film promotes a debunked claim that Starlink satellites were used to upload votes for Donald Trump. Spiro wrote that "Starlink was not connected to vote tabulation" and that Starlink satellites "communicate by laser inter-satellite link; that is what 'lasers in space' describes." He also wrote that Gibney was "on notice, before release, that the insinuation is false," and, per TheWrap, that Musk's team contacted Gibney several times to present Musk's side and was refused.

Jigsaw's reply, as quoted by NPR, was that its "right to engage in open debate and fact-based examinations of powerful public figures" is protected by the First Amendment, and it pointed out that Musk calls himself a "free speech absolutist." St. Clair called the threats "a joke." Musk himself called the film "a hit piece" and "a psy op" on social media. NPR also asked University of Chicago law professor Genevieve Lakier, who said a public figure like Musk would have to prove "actual malice," meaning the filmmakers knew a statement was false or showed reckless disregard for the truth, a standard she called "very demanding." NPR noted that neither Spiro nor Musk had seen the film when the letter went out.

Now my opinion, which you are free to disagree with. I think the letter did more to publicize this film than any trailer could, and the evidence for that is the schedule: the date moved up because of public interest, not down because of nerves. That is the old Streisand effect, where trying to suppress something spreads it further. But I also think the fight points at the one thing that will decide whether Musk earns trust or loses it. The question is not "is the film hard on Musk." Critics clearly say it is. The question is whether it clearly separates what it can document from what it only suggests. A documentary that lets a hunch ride along dressed as a fact hands the other side its best argument. A documentary that shows its evidence and labels its inferences is very hard to knock down, in court or out of it.

Claim check: six things being argued about, sorted

When a movie and a lawyer are both telling you what to think, the useful move is to slow down and sort. I built this table myself from the reporting listed at the bottom. The first three columns are sourced reporting. The last column is my own read, not a fact, and I have not seen how the film itself handles any of these points.

Where critics agree and where they split

Reading a stack of reviews, the agreement is striking. Nearly everyone calls it gripping and unsettling. Variety's Owen Gleiberman called it "a lacerating and important watch." Vulture's Bilge Ebiri wrote that it is "absorbing and often infuriating" and said he was never bored despite knowing many of the stories. The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney questioned whether sitting in sustained outrage for that long is healthy, then added the line I keep thinking about:

The splits are about craft, not about whether the film matters. IGN's Siddhant Adlakha gave it a 6 out of 10, calling it "Okay" and finding little new, though he found the full picture unsettling. IndieWire's Ryan Lattanzio found the pacing good but doubted audiences will sit through four hours in a theater. Consequence's reviewer, Liz Shannon Miller, wrote that the film "didn't need the gimmicks," and called the animated shooter-style sequences about layoffs and the DOGE cuts "tasteless." TheWrap's Ben Croll said the film takes a while to get going and that its strongest material comes after the three-hour mark, when Musk joins the Trump administration.

Two things from the reviews shape my verdict. First, the criticism is mostly about style, which tells me the substance is landing. Second, Consequence lists topics the film leaves out, including crypto and Neuralink, which tells me four hours still is not "everything." It is a case, not an encyclopedia.

The fake Elon: how the avatar works and why I am uneasy

Because Musk would not sit down, Gibney's team built a digital version of him, styled like a video-game character according to Little White Lies, that speaks real quotes from his past interviews and appearances. Gibney told the AP, as relayed by The Next Web, that the choice is intentionally ironic, tied to simulation theory, and meant to convey "the reality of what he's done and unreality of his narrative." The production took legal advice before using it. Even the film's theme song plays with Musk's words: David Byrne co-wrote "Let Me Sell You a Dream" with composer Daniel Pemberton, built from Musk quotes, and Byrne described them as "All his own words. No editorializing," per Wikipedia.

Here is where I land, and again I have not seen it, so this is a principle, not a review. Using a synthetic Musk to say his real words is defensible when three things are true: the words are really his, the synthesis is disclosed and a lawyer looked at it. The Next Web's writer made the same point and added the worrying part, which is that the precedent could be used by people who meet none of those conditions. I think that is exactly right. The tool is not the problem. The habit of making famous faces say things is a habit I would like to see done in the open, with receipts, every single time.

Four hours: pick your sitting

Practical question, because nobody wants to find out at hour three that they should have eaten dinner. Here is how I would think about the three realistic ways to watch, in the order I would rank them for a first-timer.

1. 1
   The full-effect option

   In a theater, one sitting

   The film was built for this, with an intermission written into the runtime. Eat first, use the 10 minutes to stretch, and keep in mind Croll's note that the strongest material comes late. This is the choice if you want the experience critics are describing.

2. 2
   The patient option

   At home on HBO, over two nights

   HBO has the streaming rights, and TheWrap reports a longer cut is planned for 2027. I did not find a confirmed date, so this is a wait-and-see choice. It trades the big screen for the freedom to pause and look things up.

3. 3
   The homework option

   Read first, watch second

   Read the NPR reporting on the texts and the lawyer's letter, then watch with the claim check in mind. You will notice more when the film shows evidence and when it only hints. This is the one I would pick for anyone who wants to stay skeptical in both directions.

Quick answers people are searching for