Iñárritu’s Digger divides viewers before delivering a powerful finale
Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s *Digger*, starring Tom Cruise, has opened to weak box office and sharply divided critics and audiences. The reviewer argues that its deliberately disorienting, excessive style can test viewers’ patience, but leads to a powerful finale.
The film follows an oil executive whose drilling disaster threatens Norway, before revealing that the apparent climate catastrophe is a play in rehearsal and Cruise’s character is an actor. John Goodman and Sophie Wilde also star; the film reportedly earned $20 million worldwide in its opening weekend against a budget of at least $125 million.
- *Digger* earned $20 million in its opening weekend.
- Its budget is at least $125 million.
- The reviewer praises its challenging style and moving finale.
New here? Start with this
Alejandro G. Iñárritu is a Mexican director renowned for visually complex and thematically ambitious films that often explore human suffering and philosophical questions. Digger is his latest work, starring Tom Cruise in a leading role, with a budget exceeding £125 million and a supporting cast including John Goodman and Sophie Wilde. The film represents a significant collaboration between a prestigious filmmaker and a major Hollywood star.
The narrative follows an oil executive whose drilling operation unleashes an environmental catastrophe threatening Norway. Partway through, the story reveals a twist: the disaster is actually a stage play in rehearsal, and Cruise's character is an actor performing in it. This unexpected revelation fundamentally reframes the viewer's understanding of the entire preceding film.
Iñárritu has built his career on creating formally challenging cinema that demands significant engagement from audiences. His films typically employ elaborate visual techniques and complex narrative structures to explore their themes in depth. The substantial budget and high-profile casting of Digger reflect the ambition of this latest project to reach a broad audience whilst maintaining the director's distinctive artistic vision.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Iñárritu's deliberately disorienting approach serves a thematic purpose—mirroring the confusion and dread of climate crisis itself—and the powerful finale validates the uncomfortable journey, rewarding patient viewers with meaningful payoff. Challenging films that resist immediate gratification often prove more artistically significant than crowd-pleasing entertainment, and audiences' initial resistance need not diminish the work's genuine achievement or its commentary on reality versus performance.
The case against
A film's primary responsibility is engaging its audience effectively, and deliberately alienating viewers for extended periods prioritises provocation over communication. With a major budget and established star, this isn't experimental indie cinema; it represents a significant financial gamble that failed to justify its means through its ends. A powerful finale does not necessarily redeem two hours of frustration, and the sharp division and weak box office suggest the film failed not because audiences lack sophistication, but because the approach demanded more than audiences could reasonably be expected to invest.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Ars Technica as “Review: Fine, let’s talk about Digger”.