Neil Young hails ‘Digger’ “the best film I have ever seen”
Neil Young has praised Alejandro G Iñárritu’s film *Digger*, starring Tom Cruise, calling it “the best film I have ever seen”. His endorsement stands out as the film has divided audiences and is reportedly heading towards a major box-office loss, raising questions about how it may be received beyond its commercial performance.
Young said he sees *Digger* as an artwork reflecting today’s political and social climate, rather than a conventional Tom Cruise film. The film opened in cinemas on 2 October and, according to the article, is projected to lose about $245 million against a reported $280 million budget; Young urged viewers to approach it with an open mind.
- Neil Young called *Digger* the best film he has ever seen.
- The film is reportedly on course to lose about $245 million.
- Young sees it as an artwork reflecting contemporary society.
New here? Start with this
Neil Young is a Canadian singer-songwriter known for a career spanning more than six decades. Alejandro G Iñárritu is a Mexican film-maker whose films include Birdman and The Revenant; Digger stars Tom Cruise, an American actor associated with major action films.
Films can be judged in different ways: ticket sales show how widely they attract cinema audiences, while critics and viewers may disagree about their artistic or cultural value. That distinction matters when a film’s commercial prospects and public response appear to point in different directions.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Young’s praise makes the case that Digger should be judged as an ambitious work of art, not only as a conventional star vehicle or a commercial product. If it reflects current political and social tensions in a distinctive way, its willingness to divide audiences may be part of its artistic purpose, and an open-minded viewing could reveal value that box-office results do not measure.
The case against
Viewers may reasonably judge Digger by whether its ideas and filmmaking work for them, rather than treating its political ambitions as evidence of artistic success. A projected major loss and divided audience response do not settle its quality, but they can support the view that the film has failed to connect broadly, and one prominent admirer’s enthusiasm cannot substitute for each viewer’s own assessment.