Normally, when promoting a film, many of the clips and trailers shown will emphasize to audiences why they should go see it. However, the new film Digger, starring Tom Cruise, didn’t really grab my attention. I understand that Cruise is a very talented actor; I mean, just look at his resumé. However, for a movie such as Digger, I didn’t really understand the hype around it. Was it because Cruise’s name was behind it? Probably. Was it because the filming style was unique? No doubt about that. Unfortunately, none of the trailers or clips ever grabbed my attention, and I thought I wouldn’t be a big fan of this film after watching them. Fortunately, I was very wrong, and I unexpectedly enjoyed this movie.
The story revolves around an oil billionaire named Digger Rockwell (played by Cruise). His drilling company has caused a catastrophic environmental crisis, triggering disasters worldwide. The cast also includes Sandra Hüller, Jesse Plemons, Riz Ahmed, and John Goodman. For a movie like this, there’s not much I can say without spoiling any important plot points. It’s a type of interpretive movie that you have to see twice to understand the full picture or catch any details you missed. Sometimes, I’m not the biggest fan of films like that, especially those where the resolution could have been told to the audience. However, this film does something different and unique that I believe worked well. Yet, audiences and critics have split this film in half. Critics were not the biggest fans, with the film first receiving a 53% on Rotten Tomatoes; however, audiences are fond of the film and have given it an 83%.
Let’s start with the positives. We all know Cruise as an insane actor who does all his stunts himself, especially in the action-packed film franchise Mission: Impossible. However, I never really got the chance to see Cruise act to his full potential. Sure, you might argue with me, saying, “Well, what about Top Gun?” While that is a good argument, let’s all be honest: the acting wasn’t the only reason why we loved that movie. Besides that, in a film like this, Cruise really stands out. His range throughout the film has you at the edge of your seat, or keeps your eyes glued to the screen. I believe Cruise may have a chance of being nominated for an Oscar; winning is probably out of the question. Another positive I enjoyed was the cinematography. The cinematography uses wide-angle lenses to create a picturesque scenery. It also makes you more focused on the surrounding context and details in every room, better informing the audience. I found that choice very intriguing, especially for a film like this.
Now, I want to talk more about what holds this film back. The first thing I noticed was the flow of the plot. I know I praised the film before for its unique plot, but the way it flowed was a bit jarring. It left me very confused in the first and second acts, and it didn’t click until my friends told me what was going on. Once the third act began, I learned why the plot flowed the way it did. It just felt flat and bland to me, and the way they tried to connect with the audience didn’t work. Another negative for me was the dull color grading. While watching, it looked kind of visually unpleasing; some of the shots were duller than others. It kind of felt as though this movie was shot in a log. It’s saddening to see that Hollywood films nowadays are leaning more toward dullness rather than the colorful worldbuilding that takes audiences to a different space.
Overall, this film definitely has a reason to be split in half. There could be a crowd of people who enjoy it, and the other crowd will believe they wasted their time. Personally, I think this will be the kind of film where in today’s age it won’t be praised well, but in about five to ten years, people will say this was a “masterpiece.” On my Letterboxd, I believe this film deserves 3 out of 5 stars.