Digger (2026)

Have you heard of Tom Cruise? Of course you have. A ridiculous question. Probably the most famous contemporary film star, a leading man.

My 1940s screen-writer alter-ego wants a comparator. “Is he Cary Grant?”

“No, that’s more Ryan Gosling or Bradley Cooper. He’s suave, but a bit more swash-buckling.”

“Ah, Errol Flynn.”

“That’ll do.”

She’s in. Let’s go and see a 21st century leading man known for his action-hero movies. I did not warn her. So, when Digger arrives on screen, balding, wrinkled and paunchy, she was a little alarmed.

Digger has been touted as Tom Cruise’s attempt at a competitive Oscar. It is about the acting. His leading man persona is hidden behind prosthetics, which many might find distracting, off-putting or disappointing. To make this bid for critical acclaim, he has chosen a dark ,satirical comedy tackling a range of interconnected issues around: the depletion of the earth’s resources, capitalism, greed, corruption, science denial and the power and necessity of art.

Digger is an ostentatious movie. It is stylish, with sets that have a touch of Wes Anderson, carefully placed props and co-ordinated colour palettes. The old men discussing the destruction of Europe look dusty.  The screenplay has Brechtian touches of breaking walls, reminding the audience it is drama we are watching, to keep us thinking as well as feeling. When the first of these happen, a break from the film action, it is very disconcerting. (A couple sitting in front of me and my partner left, possibly because of that discomfort and my 1940s screenwriter tutted.)

The full scale of the twist needs the viewer stay to the end, making it difficult to review without spoilers. However, I can confirm that me and my partner turned to each other and agreed we’d enjoyed it.

As for Tom Cruise’s bid for award season – he is very good at playing a maniacal capitalist, a frustrated actor, a worried father. He has fun in testing his skills. But, his is not the best performance in the film. John Goodman’s cartoon of a president is more commanding on screen. Riz Ahmed gives a fabulous performance as a wretched environmental scientist. It is true that less was asked of them, but they delivered more.

There may be an Oscar for the sound track and sound design, which fascinated with emphatic water-dripping, constant noises of decay and creaking.

But I feel like this won’t be a film for everyone. You know how Citizen Kane tops critics best film lists, but plenty of others say it’s too long, too overblown and the final reveal is too banal. Of course, both things can be true. It is great and too long. Digger will split audiences. I’m not surprised someone walked out. They weren’t wrong. It was irritating. But it was also worth staying in the screening. My 1940s screenwriter, used to hack movies and handsome leading men may well have baulked at Cruise’s prosthetics and considered it pretentious. But I admired the scope of it, the nested narratives and the dark satire.

I haven’t watched many of Cruise’s recent films. I don’t really do action movies. But he obviously loves his craft. However, the fact that a very rich man was starring in a film about the evils of hoarding and choosing wealth wasn’t lost on me either.  Especially as the film was an invitation to cynicism.

The cynicism is what will split audiences.

Earlier in the week I watched the delightful drama-documentary The Cycle of Love, which had the opposite invitation – an appeal to our optimism about humanity.

If you are choosing a film to watch this week, maybe before you make the decision consider your inclination. If you feel you want to feed your pessimism then maybe Digger is for you. On the other hand, if you want a nourishing tale of the potential of human connection, go for The Cycle of Love. Both got 3.5 stars from me.

You can also send me a tip by clicking on my author profile:

Rachel Robbins | Vocal