Disclosure Day (PG-13)
26/07/26 22:57 Filed in: 2026
Starring: Emily Blunt
June 2026
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
God gave us two ears and one mouth so we can listen twice as much as we speak. You’ve probably heard that aphorism. Sadly, our ability to listen to each other has been significantly impaired in recent decades, especially when the conversation turns to politics or religion.
The timeliness of director Steven Spielberg’s new thrill-fest, Disclosure Day, boarders on the preternatural. There are several hints in the movie that the world is on the brink of global upheaval. With the Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Hamas and U.S./Iran conflicts raging in real life, many believe we’re already in World War III—even if it hasn’t been officially declared as such. Coincidental parallel? Or art imitating life?
Also, the movie comes just weeks after the government declassified files/videos involving what are believed to be extraterrestrial (E.T.) phenomena. Again, is this serendipitous timing or governmental grooming, pre-conditioning people for an earth-shattering alien reveal? There’s plenty of fodder here for conspiracy enthusiasts or the average person who distrusts the powerful individuals that control our nation and the world.
Regardless of whether external agencies influenced this movie’s subject matter or release date, its premise shouldn’t be underestimated: What would you do if you saw incontrovertible proof that aliens are living among us? Would you run to your nearest superstore and hoard supplies? Would you hunker down and hope to ride it out? Would you lose your faith? Or, like Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) does in the movie, would you just roll with it?
The script, written by Spielberg and David Koepp (Jurassic Park), doesn’t waste time dwelling on how humans would respond to the announcement that non-human biologics are on our planet. Instead, they distill these various reactions into a simple binary, represented by Colin Firth’s Noah Scanlon and Colman Domingo’s Hugo Wakefield. Noah wants to conceal the truth at all costs for fear of what people will do to each other. Hugo believes that people deserve to know the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Of course, this reveal/conceal dichotomy represents the diversity of arguments people in positions of power have made for decades (long before Project Blue Book) to either trust people with the truth or keep them in the dark, so as not to create a mass panic. But in the story, this complex dyad is reduced to situational ethics, hypotheticals with no real-world repercussions since Disclosure is a thriller/sci-fi movie.
The film acknowledges the corruption that pervades the halls of power around the world and how an enterprising individual can topple their house of cards by releasing the truth; whether via TV news coverage (a bit passé in the new media landscape—more on this later) in this movie, or a newspaper article in Spielberg’s The Post (2017), which this film echoes in many ways.
Governments conspiring with the military or other private science/tech firms to conceal or explain away the existence of E.T. life is nothing new (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977) in cinema. But here, Spielberg reverses the conspiracy polarity from government concealment (textual—inside the world of the movie) to government propaganda (extra-textual—in the real world). To put it a different way, in past decades, audiences viewed Spielberg’s alien movies as proof of the government’s complicity in covering up the existence of E.T.s. With Disclosure, today’s savvier spectators sense they’re being manipulated, conditioned for an impending eponymous event.
The director’s conspicuous backlog of films featuring aliens, coupled with the recent declassification of some UFO—or UAP (insert vomit emoji)—files by the U.S. government, makes one wonder if this movie was produced and released as part of a government psyop? Was it all pre-arranged, priming us to accept the reality of aliens? Is Spielberg himself an alien? If so, what’s he trying to tell us?
While we’re asking questions, is Disclosure intended to trigger certain behaviors in the audience? For instance, who benefits from the universal acceptance of aliens? Or conversely, who benefits from the widespread fear of aliens? It’s obvious who profits if the movie does well at the box office.
Several scenes offer fascinating insights into the human psyche, allowing us to wrestle with the extraordinary, reality-altering revelations in the movie. During one pivotal scene, a cardinal flies through a window into Margaret’s apartment. A mental connection is made between woman and bird (an alien in disguise). Soon after the encounter, Margaret starts speaking in foreign languages without realizing it. Then, during a live weather report, she speaks in an alien dialect—a series of clicks and pops. All who hear are amazed, confused or frightened. Her boyfriend questions her sanity. She gets impressions of where certain people are located or which direction they’re traveling. Margaret’s greatest superpower is her ability to look into someone’s eyes and immediately know their deepest desires or secrets. Based on what she reads in their minds, Margaret releases people from guilt, gives helpful advice and allows people to see long-lost loved ones. Margaret’s telepathic gift is similar to Sybok’s ability to free people from their pain in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989).
Another interesting subplot involves Jane Blankenship (Eve Hewson), who hides out at a Catholic nunnery to avoid Scanlon’s agents. A former novitiate who walked away from the church, Jane asks Sister Maura (Elizabeth Marvel) if she would lose her faith if it was proven E.T. life existed. The nun says no, she doesn’t believe we’re alone in the universe and that it would be a tremendous waste if God made all of it just for humans. The movie unequivocally affirms that religious people wouldn’t walk away from their faith, and, what’s more, would be even more convinced of the existence of God.
It’s unknown whether real-life religious adherents would have a similar reaction to Sister Maura’s (the events in the movie are fictional, after all), but it’s an interesting point to ponder. It’s also curious that Spielberg, a Jew, chose Catholicism to represent religion in the film; to the exclusion of all other beliefs. Regardless, it’s refreshing to see religion treated so thoughtfully and respectfully in a major Hollywood movie.
Despite its many thrilling and thoughtful moments, the story is filled with plot holes and character decisions that defy credulity. It’s ironic that the strong suit of Spielberg’s thrillers, namely action sequences, are the weak link in this film. Many of the movie’s action beats are ill-conceived, like when Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor) steals a car and crashes through a fence, into a tree, into other cars and into the living room of a log cabin to rescue Jane. Then he tears off with a motorcade of sleek vehicles on his tail; the car is riddled with bullets from the pursuing agents.
Later, after sending the car over a cliff to fool Scanlon’s agents, Daniel and Jane head into the woods with the men in black standing just on the other side of a boulder. Wouldn’t the agents have spotted Daniel and Jane or, at the very least, heard their movements as they traipsed through the woods? Why didn’t the deer/alien create a diversion on the other side of the road to lead the agents away from Daniel and Jane? That, at least, would’ve been more realistic.
Though Disclosure is a mashup of Close Encounters, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), and The War of the Worlds (1953), it’s “man on the run” plot most closely resembles Minority Report (2002), a darkly futurist film that far surpasses this year’s model. The whole “diving” into other people’s minds recalls the “Pre-Cogs” from Minority Report. In this movie, characters are able to create a mind link via a gray, metallic alien device.
Spielberg and Koepp use this alien Swiss Army gadget to produce all manner of Force-like effects, but it becomes a convenient crutch for the story. Though the device doesn’t have a name, its applications are manifold—just don’t squeeze it, for heaven’s sake. The fact that its abilities, and limitations, are never clearly defined, relegates this nifty artifact to the ranks of other shameless movie gimmicks.
It’s curious that Spielberg/Koepp didn’t turn these alien devices into MacGuffins. With the powers they possess, wouldn’t everyone want one? Indeed, wouldn’t most people kill to obtain one? The magical properties inherent in these devices are completely taken for granted in the movie, which is a head-scratching nitpick.
While Spielberg deserves his fair share of criticism for the story’s shortcomings, his directing is sure-handed and, on occasion, magical. The lively TV studio scenes and the flashback sequence, where Daniel and Margaret learn vital clues about missing moments from their childhoods, is equal parts frightening and beautiful. Spielberg is no stranger to action sequences set on trains, and the one here is appropriately pulse-pounding, shot with visual verve and nail-biting near misses.
The performances in Disclosure are terrific, especially Blunt and Domingo. Firth is reliably pitch-perfect as villain Scanlon. Wyatt Russell (son of Kurt Russell), is effective as Margaret’s fair-weather boyfriend, Jackson. Marvel lives up to her name as the wise nun (Yoda/Mr. Miyagi archetype). Due to his unconvincing acting and his character’s many dunderheaded decisions, O’Connell is the weak link in the cast—ironic since he plays the main character. Despite this miss, kudos goes to Spielberg (and his casting director) for assembling a fresh slate of actors he’s never worked with before.
Someone Spielberg is extremely familiar with is composer John Williams. Disclosure marks their 30th collaboration together. Disclosure isn’t Williams’ most memorable score, but it’s one of his finest at perfectly matching the emotions of the movie. The score is beautifully understated and only grows in intensity when absolutely necessary. Interestingly, one of the main themes of this movie (heard prominently in “listen…” on the soundtrack) has strikingly similar notes, sans syncopation and fortissimo orchestration, as the “Anakin Vs. Obi-Wan” track on the Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge Of The Sith soundtrack.
Williams reportedly toiled on the score for six months and, astoundingly, composed over two hours of music for Disclosure. At age 94, will this be Williams’ final score? I sincerely hope not, but if so, the music for Disclosure highlights his virtuosity and versatility—it contains none of the bombast or rousing fanfares that marked much of his earlier work. Either way, it’s a thrill to experience another masterwork from the maestro, especially after a non-disclosed health issue sidelined him a couple years ago.
While the accompaniment certainly does its job in establishing the overall mood, what’s the real heart of the movie? Some will say the key sequence is when Daniel and Margaret use the device to learn answers about their mysterious pasts. Hard to argue, but for my money, the movie’s most meaningful moment is the subtly stated reason for why humanity is headed for destruction—the “outside observers” living among us believe we’re doomed because we’ve lost our ability to have empathy toward others.
The veracity of this profound indictment comes into sharp focus every time we watch the news. As is the case in the movie’s fictional world, there are conflicts all over the globe today. In the real world, our society is plagued with national, political, ideological, racial, ecological and religious divisions. People kill innocent bystanders on subways and have no idea why. Are we devolving into animals? Are we any less destructive than the aliens we fear?
An outside force stepping into our world and confronting us with our moral deficiencies brings to mind a similar scenario in The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), where Klaatu (Michael Rennie) warns humanity about the dangers of nuclear power. Obviously the message impacted audiences back then since humans never initiated a nuclear war (thankfully). But Disclosure is a salient reminder of the destructive power held by nations possessing nuclear bombs, which have the capacity to end all life on our planet in a flash.
So, will our collective fear of E.T.s finally bring about global unity? Instead of fighting each other, will we pool our resources to defend Earth from alien invaders, a la the humans in the original The War of the Worlds? Or will our disunity bring about our end, as aliens sit back and watch in bewilderment as we destroy each other, a la the Twilight Zone episode, The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street?
The movie ends with an alien’s admonition for us to “Listen.” This could mean to listen to the alien, but a more likely, and poignant, reading of the scene is that “the gray” is encouraging us to listen to each other, lest our handful of wars expand to embroil the entire globe in bloody conflict. But if we can’t find a way to listen to each other, would we listen to an alien? This brings us back to The Day the Earth Stood Still, which ended well because the aliens had our best interests at heart. But what if the aliens are more like the ones in The War of the Worlds, or in TV series like V, Earth: Final Conflict or Falling Skies? Or, most frighteningly, like the Kanamits in the Twilight Zone episode, To Serve Man.
What if we end up placing our faith in aliens who aren’t trustworthy? What if they have the ability to hypnotize us or cleverly fool us into believing illusions, a la the Talosians in the Star Trek two-part episode, The Menagerie? What if the aliens win us over with lying signs and wonders, a la the Antichrist in the Bible? If someone (or something) seems to have all the answers, humanity would likely follow that individual over a cliff (e.g., Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana and David Koresh in Waco, Texas).
The medium for reaching the entire planet with the truth of alien existence would certainly be the internet, right? Why then does Spielberg have the titular event take place at a TV newsroom…in Kansas City of all places (I actually applaud the director for spotlighting a city other than NYC, LA or Chicago)? Yes, there’s palpable synergy in the scenes where producers yell at switchers, who direct camera operators, or when station managers call larger affiliates, who put the “small town” footage on standby. The background business of a TV news production is fascinating, especially when displayed with this degree of urgency. Spielberg has done for TV news in this film what he did for printed news in The Post.
Isn’t Spielberg a few decades behind the times, though? It’s admirable that he chose to spotlight the profession of broadcast journalism, but many people, especially those under 30, don’t watch news on a TV, and may not watch traditional news at all (online commentary shows and podcasts have significantly winnowed the TV news audience).
But let’s suspend our disbelief and say that everyone on Earth would tune into a breaking news story revealing declassified footage that definitively proved the existence of E.T.s. Would people believe it or scoff at it—just another AI fake? Just as Spielberg proves he’s out of step when it comes to the media landscape, he’s also completely unaware of how cynical his audience has become since E.T. (1982), or even Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). Many would see the alien footage, roll their eyes and play the next YouTube video. It’s a sad reflection of who we’ve become, but many would ignore the story and go on living their lives. Not to mention how fractured we’ve become along ideological lines—if the news network showing the alien vids was conservative, the liberal half of the country would tune out the “fake news,” and vice versa. Though this TV newsroom climax would’ve worked decades ago, it doesn’t work in 2026.
The most important line in the movie is when Hugo says people are starved for the truth. People, especially young people, are sick of being lied to. By politicians. By the media. By teachers, religious leaders or even parents. Within the context of the line, Hugo means people are sick of the alien coverup, but in a broader, more keenly felt way, people are starving for real truth, not fake/slanted/reverse/activist/politically-motivated/deceptive truth (otherwise known as mis-, dis-, and mal-information).
In the final analysis, Disclosure is a big swing that asks some big questions, but barely scratches the surface of how humans would react to irrefutable proof (don’t we already have that?) that aliens exist. Far greater than the middling story are the movie’s themes and messages and their implications for the future. Disclosure isn’t a great movie, but it’s insatiably thought-provoking.
The movie may be a slick example of cultivation theory or just a straightforward sci-fi yarn. Either way, viewers are sure to have strong opinions about this movie. Despite its many narrative missteps, Disclosure’s evocative subject matter elevates it to the realm of heady art at best, watercooler entertainment at worst.
So, aside from another alien movie in Spielberg’s œuvre and another hit movie on his filmography, will Disclosure make a lasting impact on its audience or society as a whole? Will the movie be a blip on the radar? Or will it goad governmental and global powers into finally revealing the truth?
Full disclosure?
I have no idea.
Rating: 3 out of 4