Guillermo Del Toro Buries ‘Digger’ In Praise, Slams “Petty” Review: “Decidedly A Theatrical Experience”
Guillermo del Toro has praised Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s film *Digger* as an ambitious, complex work best experienced in a cinema. He also criticised an IGN review that called the film far from essential viewing and advised audiences to wait for streaming, describing its headline as “petty”.
Del Toro has continued sharing positive reactions from other viewers, while comparing the film’s mixed reception with early criticism of titles later appreciated by audiences. *Digger*, starring Tom Cruise as oil tycoon Digger Rockwell, has a 51% critics’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a C+ CinemaScore; its plot follows Rockwell as he tries to avert blame for a catastrophe he caused.
- Del Toro says *Digger* is made for the cinema.
- He called an IGN review headline “petty”.
- The film has a 51% critics’ rating and a C+ CinemaScore.
New here? Start with this
"Digger" is a new film directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu and stars Tom Cruise as an oil tycoon who faces consequences after causing a disaster. The film has received mixed reviews from both critics and audiences.
A central debate surrounding the film concerns whether it justifies a trip to the cinema or whether audiences should wait to watch it on streaming platforms. This reflects a broader question in the film industry about the value of theatrical experiences and whether certain ambitious works are best seen on the big screen.
Guillermo del Toro is a filmmaker who has contributed to discussions about the film. Divided receptions to ambitious cinema often spark broader conversations about artistic value and how audiences choose to experience different works.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Cinema is an art form best experienced theatrically, particularly for ambitious, complex works that rely on scale and visual sophistication. While Digger has received mixed reviews, this reflects the inherent risk in artistic ambition—challenging works often face initial critical resistance before later appreciation. Del Toro's historical examples are instructive: many now-canonical films were initially dismissed. Audiences should not simply outsource their judgment to aggregated scores; a work described as decidedly theatrical deserves individual evaluation, not summary dismissal based on mixed reviews.
The case against
A 51% critical rating and C+ CinemaScore indicate genuine mixed reception, not misunderstood brilliance awaiting rediscovery. Recommending that audiences wait for streaming is sensible consumer advice: it respects budget constraints and acknowledges that most films with mixed initial receptions remain mixed. Del Toro's historical parallels romanticise cinema—most initial critical failures do not become classics. Audiences are not obligated to fund every theatrical experiment regardless of reception, and suggesting they might have legitimate practical reasons to wait for streaming is consumer guidance, not pettiness.