Skip to content
Bramble

Entertainment · Tom Cruise film Digger: reviews and press

Critics split on Tom Cruise's Digger as Warner Bros. answers with "decide for yourself" ad

Reviews of Alejandro G. Iñárritu's oil-tycoon satire Digger, starring Tom Cruise, range from raves to zero-star pans, with Rotten Tomatoes around 52-53 per cent. Warner Bros. has responded with an ad inviting viewers to "decide for yourself" before the 2 October release.

18 outlets · 9L · 6C · 3R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 6). New coverage since the last version from ABC News (Australia), Breitbart, Digital Spy, France 24, New Statesman, The Conversation. Previously: “Critics split on Tom Cruise and Iñárritu's satire Digger ahead of 2 October release”.

Image: /Film
Image: Rolling Stone
Image: Daily Mail
Image: Den of Geek
Image: IndieWire
Image: New York Post
Image: Screen Rant
Image: The A.V. Club

1 / 8

The story, neutrally told

The review embargo for Digger lifted on 29 September, and the film opens in cinemas on 2 October. Tom Cruise plays Digger Rockwell, an oil tycoon whose Greenland drilling sets loose an ice shelf heading for Europe; John Goodman plays the US president. Radio Times reported a Rotten Tomatoes score of 52 per cent from 113 reviews and a Metacritic score of 44, while The Hollywood Reporter cited 53 per cent and called the response polarised.

Several reviewers say a twist about half an hour in recasts the film as meta-commentary and decline to reveal it; the New York Post says Warner Bros. asked critics not to disclose it. The New York Post gave it zero stars, calling it Cruise's "first real stinker in nearly 10 years" and saying he is "just not very good". The Daily Mail's Brian Viner gave four stars, calling it "bold and often brilliant film-making" and saying he enjoyed it more on a second viewing.

/Film said the film is saved by Cruise's performance, while Rolling Stone found it impossible either to dismiss as a mistake or to say it works. Warner Bros. released an ad quoting both praise and criticism, with "Masterpiece" set against "Unpleasant" and "Brilliant" against "Baffling", under the line "decide for yourself". Variety reports the film is tracking for a $12 million to $15 million North American opening, down from earlier projections of $18-20 million; it says the budget rose from $125 million to between $160 million and $180 million, which a Warner Bros. spokesperson disputes.

Iñárritu told IndieWire he originally wanted to call the film Blah, Blah, Blah, and praised Warner Bros. and Legendary for backing it.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.

Left9 outlets

Framing
Mostly reviews and industry coverage treating Digger as an ambitious but flawed swing; trade outlets also cover the split reception, the ad and the box-office risk.
Emphasis
Iñárritu's self-indulgence, the meta twist, Cruise's bold casting against type, and Warner Bros.' box-office troubles.
Leaves out or plays down
Little of the praise found in centre and right reviews; the Oscar-buzz and positive-verdict lists appear mainly in Radio Times.
Charged language
“brutally split”“smug and bombastic”“Surreal Misfire”
For example
“Some critics have praised the film as a bold and timely story” — The Hollywood Reporter
“Digger feels like it’s a bullhorn broadcasting that it’s too late, baby” — Rolling Stone
“His next stunt may be his riskiest yet” — Variety

Centre6 outlets

Framing
Reviews lean admiring of Cruise's risk-taking (/Film, Screen Rant), while Radio Times frames the reception as a threat to Oscar hopes.
Emphasis
The twist that recontextualises the film, Kubrick comparisons, and the Rotten Tomatoes score.
Leaves out or plays down
Box-office projections and the Warner Bros. budget dispute; Radio Times omits any review detail beyond the score and list of outlets.
Charged language
“Audacious Satire”“Terrific Satire”“pretty disastrous start”
For example
“it's hard to think of another recent film produced by a major studio that's as angry, pointed, and unadorned as this one is” — /Film
“that's a pretty disastrous start, which could very well spell an end to its Oscar chances” — Radio Times

Right3 outlets

Framing
Sharply divided: the New York Post delivers a scathing zero-star pan while the Daily Mail carries a four-star rave and a roundup of the split.
Emphasis
Personal verdicts on Cruise's performance and ego, and the 'love it or hate it' division.
Leaves out or plays down
Budget and box-office projections, and the ad's Warner Bros. marketing context, are not covered in the pieces read.
Charged language
“laugh-free turd”“insufferable slog”“bold and often brilliant film-making”
For example
“a pair of enormous egos being blinded to their baby’s badness” — New York Post
“this is bold and often brilliant film-making” — Daily Mail