REVIEW. DIGGER: Masterpiece or Misfire? Either way, can Tom Cruise save the world (again) from himself?
In an already polarized world, do we really need a movie to further the divide?
But then, you didn't think - of all the much anticipated 2026 fall movies - that Digger would come with so much controversy, wide-ranging reviews, and a hot debate about its cinematic merits, did you? After all, a Tom Cruise movie isn't synonymous with the provocative, artsy, indie crowd. The last time Cruise disappeared into a role (physically speaking) was 2008's Tropic Thunder. Before that, Born on the Fourth of July (1989) and Magnolia (1999) - I'm deliberating avoiding 1999's awful Eyes Wide Shut and 2007's forgettable Lions for Lambs - are the only examples of Cruise deviating from his signature action-driven Alpha male with the megawatt smile, usually tasked with saving the world. Or something.
Truth be told, most people see Tom Cruise as the quintessential popcorn movie idol. He's been part of some huge quality franchises, like Top Gun and Mission: Impossible. He's one of the few actors whose very name can open a movie, and he single-handedly brought audiences back into the theater with Top Gun: Maverick after the Covid 19 pandemic. He's a silver screen force, for sure, the patron saint of making sure movies continue to be seen where they were intended: in a theater. For that, I applaud him.
To others, though, Cruise is something else: poster child for the controversial Church of Scientology, with which he's been associated for over three decades (I have friends who refuse to see any Cruise film because of this cult connection), overbearing Hollywood wannabe desperate to prove his worth as an actor, self-centered workaholic and control freak insistent on doing his own daring stunts. Take your pick: any and all of these have been linked to Cruise since first he slid across a hard wood floor dancing to Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock 'n' Roll" in 1983's Risky Business.
So a few months ago when I saw the teaser trailer for Digger, I couldn't help but wonder what to expect. Both Cruise and writer/director Alejandro G. Iñárritu can be polarizing in their own ways, with some critics arguing Iñárritu is nothing more than a pompous narcissist whose filmography is more self-indulgent grandiosity than cinematic genius. I dunno. I kind of liked 21 Grams, Biutiful and Birdman, but The Revenant didn't appeal as much. And Bardo may have been the worst of the lot. Iñárritu has only made eight films (including Digger) since 2000, leaving huge gaps between - and much speculation about - film projects.
To compound questions and create more intrigue about a Cruise-Iñárritu collaboration, Digger skipped all of this year's major film festivals, where Oscar hopefuls often premiere. Then almost no interviews (there was one pre-recorded cast interview on GMA last week and a Cruise boogie down Jennifer Hudson's "spirit tunnel"), no press tour, no special screenings for critics in advance of the very carefully orchestrated "royal" premiere in London (William and Kate attended) two weeks ago. There was even a social media embargo imposed on any "influencers" who caught a sneak peak. Hmm...
It thus came as no surprise that, as critics were invited to see previews of the film, reviews trickled in piecemeal, with savagely different opinions. The Hollywood Reporter's chief film critic, David Rooney called Cruise-Iñárritu a "match made in showboating hell," the satire "shallow," and the result "insufferingably overbearing." The New Yorker's Justin Chang was more gracious and more balanced, calling Digger a "conceptually elaborate apocalyptic farce, [where] hectoring satire and visual sublimity fight to a draw."
But it was the New York Times head critic Manohla Dargis that really fried me when she gave away the movie's surprise, despite being handed a "politely worded request" (from the producers) not to spoil the movie by revealing some of its twists. Since I am an avid movie goer who likes to experience films they way they were intended, I don't appreciate knowing the big reveal in advance. I don't care how bad a film critic finds a movie. Giving away significant plot details to spoil the experience for others is just bad form. Period.
Comparing Iñárritu's film to other, disasterous displays of excess (Damien Chazelle's Babylon and Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis are two that come to mind), Rooney pretty much concluded that the film is awful, and Iñárritu's status as one of Hollywood's finest auteurs (he's won four Academy Awards and three BAFTA's) has been destroyed. Dargis, perhaps putting the film (and herself) on loftier ground, compares it to Citizen Kane, then fumbles in her effort to show how a movie that continues to find itself near the top of the "Greatest Movies Ever Made" list somehow serves as a prototype for Digger. Yes, Charles Foster Kane has his "Rosebud" and Digger Rockwell has his grandfather's shovel.... You get my drift.
With all this critical information (ammunition), I knew I still had to indulge my curiosity, especially given that the trailer piqued my interest and a Tom Cruise movie almost never fails to make me think about his talents as an actor and his greater place in the cinematic universe. So off I went. And my conclusion?
In sum, Digger is a very dark comedy (think Dr. Strangelove on steroids) about a rogue Texas oil tycoon named Digger Rockwell (Cruise), whose company may responsible for a potentially world-ending disaster emanating from Greenland (yes, you read that correctly). In a frantic race against time, Digger must stop the global catastrophe and show he's actually a savior, not a sabateur.
Various frenetic scenes and extended conversations ensue, as Digger shares news of the impending catatrophe with everyone from his half-sister and business partner Emma (a horribly misused Sandra Hüller), his nephew Kenny (a deliciously creepy Jesse Plemons), his company's chief scientist and head of environmental safety (a scene-stealing geeky performance from Riz Ahmed), to the President of the United States (a crude, aging John Goodman). There's a lot of pontificating here, so if you've been aware of any news involving climate change, backdeal agreements with international constituencies, and a clueless POTUS, the satire won't be difficult to discern.
The problem here is, that in spite of what probably seemed like a really good idea on paper (or maybe even in the writing process), Digger doesn't quite know what it wants to be: visually artistic, socially relevant, politically meaningful, or wildly funny. Unfortunately, it is none of these, though there are scattered scenes and off-hand comments that might make you almost smile. The big reveal - which occurs about forty minutes in - doesn't do much to underscore the plot or effectively create the sort of parallel universe it purports to build. Instead, we're left with a lot of random scenes pieced together in the hope of a climactic epiphany that never comes.
PS If you are a film aficionado, you'll probably figure out the surprise ahead of time, or at least appreciate Iñárritu's references.
Now about Tom Cruise. Is this the role that will give him another chance at a Best Actor Oscar? Honestly, no. For one thing, it's difficult for any actor (even Sean Penn) to get an Oscar for a brilliant performance in a mediocre movie. Cruise hasn't received an acting nom since 1999's supporting turn in Magnolia (he should have won), and he hasn't really done anything to build credibility as anything more than what he is: Tom Cruise. Movie star. Not that there's anything wrong with that. In a world that increasingly devalues the power of cinema (especially seeing movies in a theater), one which champions Tik Tok influencers and fleeting celebrity, Tom Cruise may be the last of dying breed: a genuine film icon.
Too bad. I've always thought Cruise has been underappreciated as an actor: his filmography has far more depth than a few action franchises and a poster-worthy smile. He's certainly been an enduring Hollywood success story, one who, like another swashbuckling hero, Harrison Ford, will likely not ever be honored with an acting Oscar. Tom's always been a good actor who has had moments of greatness on film. (Re)watch Born on the Fourth of July, Jerry McGuire, Magnolia, or even Top Gun, Rain Man and Rock of Ages (yes, you read that correctly).
Beneath layers of prosthetics, including a pot-bellied fat suit, Cruise appears to be fighting his way the entire film. He shouts, makes a lot of noise (the movie is very loud on its own), and chews the scenery (almost literary) every chance his gets. What should be a folksy caricature like Digger Rockwell becomes, instead, a blustering, intolerable windbag incapable of empathy or even humor. I was hoping Iñárritu & Company would have at least crafted a witty, reasonably coherent script, even if the satire was obvious. Sadly, there is none of that here. Just a lot of tedious bloviating set in elaborate surroundings. Maybe Digger will wind up receiving technical awards nominations for its inventive production design, or for its stunningly kinetic cinematography. But probably not for acting, directing, writing, or best picture.
And therein lies the rub. A movie that elicits adjectives ranging from "magnificent" to 'insufferable" and "brilliant" to "baffling" in the same sentence at least merits a pause for consideration. Is it one or the other? Or, even more puzzling - can it be both?
From MJ's view, I'd rather see an original film with flaws, a little controversy, and even some wild inconsistencies, than another predictable franchise installment. Can you believe there have been eleven Spiderman films with three different Spidey actors since 2002? Believe it. I checked.
In this case, though, I was disappointed. No worries about Digger becoming a franchise. One installment is enough, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. With a plethora of ridiculously uneven and sometimes downright ugly reviews - Ryan Lattanzio of Screen Talk called it "a self-indulgent miscalculation from end to end" - I can't really recommend Digger, despite its impressive cast and even with its flashes of greatness (there are few, and I may be overstating). I will say, though, that some of the critics's comments seemed directed more at Cruise's image ("he's finally looking like the 64-year-old man he is") than his performance or the film's meager merits.
Years ago, I remember film critic Gene Siskel quipping that rock musician and sometimes actor Rick Springfield's first feature, an uninspired rom-com called Hard to Hold, should have instead been called "Hard to Watch." It was a wickedly nasty, if accurate, description of a less than memorable movie (unless you've always wanted to be "Jessie's Girl"). Trying to come up with an equally snarky conclusion about Digger, I might suggest that we just bury it.
On second thought, maybe you need to see it yourself... and decide. But beware an almost dead fake cat named Maggie.
******
Digger opened nationwide in theaters this weekend. It is rated "R" for language and, arguably, some thoroughly disgusting scenes with the aforementioned Maggie.
With any luck, it will be streaming for Halloween.
Comments