Digger Reviews Split Between ‘Terrific Fun’ and ‘Worst Work of Their Careers’

Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s new climate satire Digger stars Tom Cruise as an oblivious oil tycoon who drills into a glacier in Greenland and triggers a global catastrophe. This pitch has critics evenly split. Reviews of Digger range from a 5/5 “terrific fun” verdict to a 1/2 “worst work of their careers” dismissal. On Rotten Tomatoes, the Warner Bros. film sits at a roughly even split.

The film follows Cruise’s character as he races to prove he is humanity’s savior before the ecological accident wreaks havoc on the planet. The cast includes Riz Ahmed, Sandra Hüller, John Goodman, Michael Stuhlbarg and Jesse Plemons. Iñárritu directs, and the film draws comparisons to Stanley Kubrick and Bertolt Brecht, with a satirical tone that critics describe as either audacious or smug.

The Positive Side of the Split

Not every person is running away. The London Evening Standard gave Digger a 5/5 score, calling it “audacious, risky, terrific fun,”. Deadline praised the film as a return to the adventurous era of cinema in the 1970s, pointing to Cruise’s range during a stunning 10-minute monologue that admits guilt but places blame collectively on all of us. Iñárritu again proves he is one of the most original and fascinating filmmakers working today, according to the review.

The review singles out the cinematography and production design for praise. “Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography and Dennis Gassner’s production design achieve the Kubrickian grandeur Iñárritu clearly intends,” Even when the film as a whole fails, individual elements succeed, and Cruise emerges with a win, reminding us how compelling he can be as an actor, not just as a movie star.

The BBC also loved it, despite acknowledging some excesses. “Personally, I loved it,” the reviewer writes. “Some of its excesses are, well, a bit too excessive, and most viewers will wish it was shorter.” The reviewer praises Cruise’s gargantuan performance, the conviction of the script’s grim environmental message, and Iñárritu’s antic style.

The Negative Side of the Split

The negative reviews are just as harsh. The Hollywood Reporter was blunt: “A climate crisis satire so smug and bombastic it makes Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up seem almost innocuous.”

The review describes the film as “basically what happens when you put two outsize egos together with nobody holding the reins to keep their most self-indulgent impulses in check.” It adds that the satire is so detached from human truth that its most believable character is a one-eyed animatronic cat named Maggie, a VistaVision satire so high-concept that its running time should be measured in altitude rather than minutes. “It’s difficult to imagine mainstream audiences ever wanting to be a part of this bludgeoning ordeal,” the Hollywood Reporter concludes.

IndieWire went further. The review warns that if Digger bombs as hard as feared, it may prove to be a more damning portrait of self-delusion than Iñárritu ever intended. The Wrap called Digger “what happens when you give the week’s worst Saturday Night Live sketch an inexplicably large budget and delusions of grandeur.” The film is described as the kind of movie about evil billionaires that evil billionaires would enjoy, which makes it the worst kind of movie about evil billionaires.

The Cruise Factor

Cruise’s performance is central to the debate. The New York Post argues that this is his first real stinker in nearly 10 years. “Audiences will urgently want to leave after the first five minutes,” the review states. “This is not simply a case of poor Tom being trapped in a lousy movie. He’s just not very good, even as a cartoony caricature with no depth.”

The review argues that Cruise falls short next to Nicholas Cage or Woody Harrelson, implying a more compelling performer could have stepped into the part instead. Yet Empire pushes back, saying Cruise comes out on top, pointing to how engaging he can be as an actor. The Wrap calls his take on the villainous Foghorn Leghorn a beguiling, puzzling presence that dominates the scene.

What the Reviews Agree On

There remains some shared ground amid the disagreement. Both critics agree that Digger is a climate satire made with a big studio budget, and they note its ambitious scale. The film’s message — that the planet is dying and we are complicit — is delivered in almost hectoring terms, often in loud monologues, according to Empire. The Los Angeles Times describes the film as a bizarre stunt made on a big studio budget, a climate change satire that is a self-conscious hybrid of Stanley Kubrick and Bertolt Brecht.

The Los Angeles Times points out that the terrible pranks in Digger feel so close to reality that stepping out of the movie leaves viewers less certain than ever that humanity will still be here. The film offers no hope, only a beguiling, malicious charm that, by intent, feels hollow as soon as the closing credits roll.

The Oscar Question

Audience reaction is another subject the critics raise. The Wrap suggests Digger might be divisive among viewers, which could prevent a deserving Cruise from reaching an ultra-competitive Oscar race. The Los Angeles Times admits it doesn’t entirely love this strange comedy, but finds itself giddy that it has lurched into existence.

Everyone agrees the movie goes too far. The BBC reviewer points out that around 90 minutes in, viewers grow weary of close-ups showing Goodman yelling with snake-sized veins bulging from his forehead. IndieWire’s warning is more severe: the film is so self-referential that watching it becomes painful, and you realize midway through that there’s still an hour of eardrum-shattering noise left to endure.

The Verdict

There is no middle ground here. Digger is either a bold, entertaining satire or a bludgeoning ordeal that deserves to bomb. Its ambition is clear, as is its excess. Those who champion it find a daring work that forces audiences to face themselves. Those who reject it see a self-indulgent mess wasting a talented cast.

The London Evening Standard and Deadline praise the film’s adventurous spirit and its willingness to take risks. The Hollywood Reporter and IndieWire warn that the excesses are too much, even for a satire. The Wrap’s warning that Digger may prove divisive for audiences echoes a broader concern about whether the film reaches the right audience at all.

A review rounds up gives a plain signpost for anyone weighing a ticket purchase. Those who wish to face hard questions about duty will find Digger worth their time. Those who simply want an easy watch should save their seats for the next picture. The divide on Rotten Tomatoes shows a film that is truly splitting audiences.

Key Facts Box

• Film: Digger, directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu
• Starring: Tom Cruise, Riz Ahmed, Sandra Hüller, John Goodman, Michael Stuhlbarg, Jesse Plemons
• Studio: Warner Bros.
• Rotten Tomatoes: ~50 percent split
• Positive score: 5/5 (“terrific fun”)
• Negative score: 1/2 (“worst work of their careers”)

Digger’s divide between “terrific” and “insufferable” is real. It’s a climate satire so bold that reviewers either love it or run from it, and both responses seem justified. The movie is polarizing, daring, and will probably stay that way for some time.

Source material: “Tom Cruise ‘Digger’ Reviews Are Brutally Split: From “Insufferable” to “Terrific”,” The Hollywood Reporter.

Alejandro Inarritu · climate satire · movie review · Tom Cruise · Warner Bros