«Digger,» a new film starring Tom Cruise, is now showing in Kazakhstan. In it, the actor steps away from his familiar action-star persona. One of the year’s most anticipated releases, the film has received a mixed-to-negative response from Western critics. After failing to make the Venice Film Festival lineup despite speculation that it would screen there, it is now facing an uphill battle for awards recognition.
Cruise had previously been considered a potential contender for the Oscar for best actor. The film has also stumbled at the box office, raising concerns about its commercial performance for Warner Bros. in 2026. Kursiv Lifestyle reviews «Digger» to assess whether it deserves the criticism and considers how it fits into the filmography of director Alejandro G. Iñárritu.
Read also: Top Gun in Moscow: Rare photos of Tom Cruise’s 1987 Soviet trip surface.
A tycoon, an iceberg and a hidden twist
Eccentric oil tycoon Digger Rockwell (Cruise) dotes on his cat, Maggie, who is more than 30 years old, while overseeing oil extraction operations in Greenland. During the drilling, a fissure opens in an iceberg and begins to widen at an alarming rate. The situation spirals out of control when a massive chunk of ice breaks off and drifts toward Europe, threatening to inundate millions of people. With help from a dim-witted U.S. president (John Goodman) and a concerned Dr. Ganesh (Riz Ahmed), Digger must find a way to avert disaster.
Before the film’s premiere, a conspiracy theory circulated online claiming that «Digger» was actually a musical and that Warner Bros. was desperate to keep audiences from finding out. Those rumors can be dismissed, but the film does have a hidden layer that makes it difficult to discuss without giving too much away. Revealing one of the plot twists, which comes roughly half an hour into the film, would be poor form.
It is worth noting, however, that Cruise plays two roles, and the film bears an unexpected resemblance to «Birdman,» another work by Iñárritu. Viewers can draw their own conclusions about the nature of this connection and what it might mean.
Death, catastrophe and the limits of satire
Death is a recurring theme in virtually all of Iñárritu’s films. It is no coincidence that he began his career with what became known as the «Death Trilogy» and, before a hiatus, directed «The Revenant,» about a man who returns from the brink of death. In «Digger,» the theme expands from personal tragedy to global catastrophe. One might be tempted to add «postapocalyptic» to the list of genres, but that would venture into spoiler territory.
At two hours long, «Digger» is exhausting in its own way and perhaps not quite as witty as it aspires to be. Or is that merely an illusion? When a filmmaker in his 60s suddenly goes off the rails and starts openly fooling around, it is hard not to applaud the audacity — especially when he has a budget approaching $200 million, though estimates vary, and a major Hollywood star willing to abandon his usual image as an eternally youthful action hero for a biting satire of the world around us.
Any realistic chance of an Oscar run is fading with every negative review. This is not a crowd-pleaser, the kind of film that appeals to almost everyone — a description that fits «Birdman» far better. «Digger» may instead find a second life on lists of underrated, or perhaps misunderstood, cult classics that failed to connect with audiences on their initial release.
Ultimately, Iñárritu seems more concerned with questions about art than with alarmist environmental advocacy or a rehash of familiar contemporary tropes: artificial intelligence, villainous Russians, and aging billionaires and politicians. That may not be immediately apparent, but the film’s message can be read in two ways: either solace remains possible in a world beset by relentless catastrophes, or those catastrophes have become inevitable because we have failed to pay attention.