OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

There is a big twist in Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s “Digger”. Before embarking on this review, I viddied whether or not I’d be able to properly write about the film while preserving the surprise, and determined that I could not. Thus be warned; there are spoilers ahead.

If you’re “plugged in” to even a small extent, then it is likely that you’ve seen a deluge of tweets or Instagram posts or news headlines about “Digger” over the past two weeks. For several reasons, the feature has opened a Pandora’s box of media attention. The reasons? It’s a big-budget political satire that takes on controversial climate change issues; it stars perhaps the biggest movie star of the past half-century (an actor that is controversial in his own right); it’s directed by an Academy darling who is often maligned for being grossly pretentious; and perhaps most consequentially, it’s currently on track to be a massive flop at the box office. As an amateur “film critic”, if I can even call myself that, I’m always apprehensive about reviewing these types of “hot” movies. I fear adding to the echo chamber. Nonetheless, here’s my best shot.

On a base level, I found “Digger” to be extraordinarily entertaining. There are a bunch of hokey, absurdist aspects that contribute to this. You get to see Tom Cruise as a crusty, overweight oil magnate with Big Texas energy. His character, named Digger Rockwell, has funky quirks; most prominently an extreme affection towards a decrepit cat that he lovingly feeds tinned fish with his extra long pinky fingernail. The crisis at the heart of the film is also intriguing: Digger’s drilling endeavors have sent a 400 sq. mile Greenlandic ice shelf barreling into the North Sea, threatening Europe with apocalyptic destruction. Much of the plot is dedicated to Digger’s response to the crisis as he interacts with POTUS Compson (John Goodman), the VP (Michael Stuhlbarg), and Rockwell United’s Environmental Expert, Dr. Ganesh (Riz Ahmed). Each character has their own motivations, and vaguely echo actual people in current events.

Cruise leads the zany story with gusto, which would have been sufficient enough on its own to warrant a recommendation. More on Cruise later. However, Iñárritu makes a decision that pushes “Digger” beyond mere entertainment, and into truly gutsy “auteur cinema” territory. This is the surprise twist mentioned earlier. It occurs about one-third into the story, as Digger and Compson gaze out of a window, looking across a clearly fake landscape (like something out of Wes Anderson’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox”). Up to this point, we take the sets at face value. They’re stylized for the sake of building a screwball atmosphere. However, we suddenly see a massive human figure emerge from the “landscape” and reach down to pick up a tree that has tilted over. There is a “Cut!” offscreen, and we realize that we have been watching the dress rehearsal for a broadway theater production called Fossil Fools. Tom Cruise is portraying an actor named Curtis Markson who is portraying Digger Rockwell. The story in the movie is still “real”. There was a real Digger Rockwell and a real climate catastrophe (in which millions presumably perished). But what we have been watching is all 20-something years after the fact, in a dystopian Broadway setting.

That the big reveal doesn’t fundamentally change the plot. Curtis (Cruise) and the other actors continue scene to scene playing out the Digger Rockwell saga; but now with various intercuts when there are set changes or breaks. These allow for scenes of discussion between new characters like the director (Sophie Wilde), and a mysterious producer named Kenny (Jesse Plemons). We also get glimpses of Cruise as Curtis, which is essentially just Cruise as Cruise. The backdrop of a theatrical production opens the door to the more compelling aspects of “Digger”. Foremost among them is the value of truth. In one scene, Curtis fumes about how unrealistic it would be for the President and the Vice President to be shown flying together on Air Force One. Curtis has further complaints about the aesthetics of the play he is in, all related to authenticity and believability. Ultimately, we do get an answer of sorts from Iñárritu about how much (or how little) the truth matters. It’s classically thespian, and oddly satisfying.

To my personal surprise, the twist didn’t pull me out of the original plot (as I might have presumed it would with prior knowledge). The unfolding of the climate crisis and Digger’s demise still drew me in. I suppose this is an indictment of me as a moviegoer, since I buy into stories knowing they are not real. “Digger” is just taking this idea an extra step, when the story within the story is revealed to be fictional; like a cinematic Droste effect. Anyway, the point is that the twist propels the film into conceptually thrilling territory.

Leaving the theater, I overheard a middle-aged woman telling her counterparts, “I liked the idea of the movie”. I liked the idea of “Digger” too. It is wildly creative; a movie about a theater production in the not-so-distant future about past events meant to mirror and satirize ongoing events in American politics and the global energy industry. There are plenty of reasons to write-off “Digger” as high-brow leftist hogwash. Those that do have my sympathy. I’ve actively dodged reading or watching interviews with Cruise or Iñárritu because of how uniquely obnoxious Hollywood preaching can be. But if you can drop the baggage before showtime (or hitting play on your chosen streaming platform a few months from now), “Digger” is a rare chameleon breed of movie that has something for everybody.

Highlight of the Game: If you’ve seen the trailer for “Digger”, then you’ve seen Cruise deliver the line: “When all else fails, you hit 'em with the truth. You know, the hard truth. Just bang, bang, bang!” This comes immediately after a grandiose speech Digger gives to the European Parliament, in which he takes overall responsibility for the catastrophe. In it, he scorches his audience for their role as individuals in providing the demand for his supply of oil. This scene separates “Digger” from other climate satires like Adam McKay’s “Don’t Look Up”, because it addresses the topics that Green Warriors want to avoid. There is no doubt that “Digger” is a politically biased film, and while I wouldn’t argue that it falls on the conservative side of the aisle, this sequence was extremely effective in providing another side of the argument.

Player of the Game: This is not the first time that Tom Cruise has donned prosthetics for a very un-Cruise role in a movie. He did so in Ben Stiller’s 2008 classic “Tropic Thunder”, in which he delivered an iconic performance as Les Grossman, a hot-headed Hollywood studio executive. That was little more than a cameo though. With “Digger”, Cruise is tasked with carrying the whole movie, which he does quite well. There’s been lots of recent commentary about Cruise’s career: his aversion to risky roles since the close of the 90s, his curated media seclusion since jumping on Oprah’s couch in 2005, and his highly scrutinized relationship with Scientology which peaked with Alex Gibney’s excellent documentary “Going Clear” in 2015. The reason I mention all of this is because some feel that this is a turning point for the celebrated actor, and I am hopeful that the Digger-like role is not just a one-off. The movie works because of Tom Cruise’s ability to deliver an exceptionally unique performance. Because Cruise has kept busy for the past 20 years with a slew of Mission Impossible films and straightforward action flicks, it’s nice to have a reminder of his tremendous acting ability.

Costly Turnovers: John Goodman’s President Compson is painted as a foolish, senile, demented religious fanatic. Every one of his scenes are so over-the-top and unfunny that I would have rather had a broomstick stand in for the role. “Digger” naturally draws comparisons to Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove”, which set the gold standard for political satire more than half a century ago. In “Strangelove”, Peter Sellers’ President Muffley is meek and deadpan. This sets a stable wavelength for other ridiculous characters to stand out against. I get that with the current US administration, our POTUS is the loudest character. However, Compson is not a Trump-like character. He’s something different, like a mish-mash of Joe McCarthy and Jerry Falwell. He’s distracting for not particular purpose, to the detriment of the ensemble cast.