Hollywood often faces criticism for revealing too much of a movie’s plot within promotional trailers. However, the latest film starring Tom Cruise, titled Digger, appears to be grappling with the opposite challenge. While the production once generated significant Oscar buzz, including speculation regarding a potential first win for its lead actor, the film has faced a polarized reception described variously as baffling, brilliant, or disappointing. EDITOR’S NOTE: This story details plot points from the movie “Digger” in a manner best consumed after seeing the movie yourself, if you intend to do so. It’s a common complaint against Hollywood that trailers frequently give away too much of the movie they’re trying to get audiences to see.
Opening in theaters this past Friday, the movie is projected to gross between $12 million and $15 million during its opening weekend. These figures are concerning given industry reports indicating the film requires a global total exceeding $300 million to break even after accounting for marketing expenses. Currently, the movie holds a Rotten Tomatoes score of approximately 50 percent. According to it’s now projected “Digger” may bring in somewhere between just $12-15 million in its opening weekend, according to Variety, which, The film needs to earn north of $300 million during its total global run to break even when accounting for marketing costs. (“Digger” is being distributed by Warner Bros., the parent company of.).
The central difficulty surrounding the project involves a structural twist revealed about one-third of the way into the story. Unlike classic narrative pivots such as those in The Sixth Sense or Fight Club that recontextualize the entire preceding runtime, the revelation in Digger functions more like the structural conceits seen in recent films like Barbarian or The Drama. It sets up the actual premise that marketing materials have failed to convey: the narrative is, in fact, about a play depicting a climate catastrophe. A “Dr. Strangelove”-esque parable about greed and climate change, “Digger” opened in cinemas on Friday, but expectations aren’t high for its performance. On social media or even in marketing materials — without revealing that it’s not necessarily what’s been advertised, it’s impossible to properly talk about the movie — in reviews. Instead, it’s more like the revelation that occurs early in this year’s Zendaya-Robert Pattinson movie “The Drama” or the 2022 horror hit “Barbarian”: a structural or plot conceit that sets up the real movie you’re watching — one which none of the trailers or teasers have made clear: (Be advised: this story will contain spoilers for “Digger” from this point.).
Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, the film attempts an ambitious, meta-spectacle exploring how future art might interpret present-day actions. The story opens with Digger Rockwell, played by Cruise, as a wealthy oilman characterized by a thick Texan accent. Rockwell faces a crisis when a methane disaster at a Greenland drilling site threatens to destroy Europe. As global leaders, including a president portrayed by John Goodman, gather at his mansion to manage the fallout, the scene undergoes a jarring shift. A tree falls, a director’s voice interrupts the scene, and it is revealed that the mansion is merely a stage set and the robotic-looking pets and props are staged elements. The audience learns that the protagonist is actually an actor named Curtis Markson.
Justin Chang, a critic for the New Yorker, noted that he was fascinated by how the twist resonated throughout the film and how Iñárritu utilized it for various visual and formal riffs. While Chang acknowledged that Digger can be an abrasive and unlikable experience, he noted his personal hesitation to reveal the spoiler as a sign of respect for the director’s craft. Conversely, New York Times critic Manohla Dargis chose to disclose the plot point, suggesting the reveal invited unfavorable comparisons to Charlie Kaufman’s 2008 work, Synecdoche, New York.
In response to the critical ambiguity and concerning box office trajectory, Warner Bros. adjusted its marketing approach on Tuesday. The studio began promoting the film with buzzwords like phenomenal, insane, and generational, while highlighting the starkly different critical reactions to encourage audiences to decide for themselves. This strategy follows a similar path previously taken by Paramount with the 2017 film Mother, a move that sparked intense debate among viewers.
As the film nears its conclusion, it poses deeper questions regarding the reality of the play-within-a-movie and the role of supporting characters like those played by Jesse Plemons. The film offers a moment of catharsis for the internal audience witnessing the play, though it is swiftly stripped away, leaving viewers to reconcile with the complex themes of theater, obsession, and environmental reality.
