Digger (2026)

Howells finds the film audacious, risky and terrific fun, while praising Cruise’s grandstanding performance. He also singles out the film’s climate-change warning as it builds toward a heartbreaking conclusion.

Chang finds the film a daring, meticulously realized, proudly unlikable comedy of errors that is ultimately more invigorating than depressing. He especially praises the production design and the playful visual craft, which he says transcend gimmickry.

Fletcher describes the film as brilliant but sometimes overwhelming. The farcical satire’s dense richness is singled out as both a strength and a drawback.

The page is identifiable as a review, but its text is inaccessible. Its verdict and any specifically praised or criticized element cannot be determined.

The accessible page identifies this as a review of the supplied film, but exposes no critical verdict. No specific element of praise or complaint is available in the page text.

Ehrlich calls the film a surreal misfire, though a nobler and more rewarding failure than Iñárritu’s earlier films. He praises its darkly funny final shot while faulting its clumsy comedy and overextended satire.

Nicholson finds the film a strange, bleak satire that she does not entirely love, but is glad it exists. She praises Cruise’s energetic performance and the film’s audacious excess, while faulting its weak play-within-the-film and limp subplot.

Castillo finds the film a stylish but shallow misfire, with its environmental critique obvious and its spectacle outweighing emotional depth. She praises Cruise’s entertaining, uninhibited performance, which she says helps keep the film from collapsing completely.

Strong finds the satire toothless and overstuffed, with little meaningful target. She singles out the elaborate production design and unsettling cinematography as the film’s greatest assets.

Loughrey finds the satire frustrating and insufficiently sharp, despite admiring Iñárritu’s boldness. She praises the cast’s high-farce performances, especially Riz Ahmed’s comedic timing.

The critic finds the satire frequently unwieldy and unfunny, though still compulsively watchable. They praise Cruise’s charismatic performance and the film’s imaginative production design and striking cinematography.

Ebiri finds the film torturous and often self-defeating, though its underlying environmental despair ultimately gives it weight. He praises the sadness and horror beneath the grandstanding while faulting the noisy style and structural gambit.

Richards finds the film visually impressive but ultimately disappointing and lacking depth. He praises Cruise’s committed performance and the cinematography and production design, while faulting the characters and hectoring monologues.

Gleiberman finds the satire overbearing and self-important, with its climate-disaster warning delivered too didactically to be funny. He praises Cruise’s fiery performance in a speech that briefly gives the film’s argument real force.

Grierson finds the film an ambitious but shallow misfire. He singles out Tom Cruise’s failure to convince as a bullish Texas oilman.

Steele argues that Cruise’s performance fails to convince, despite the film’s ambitious transformation and farcical premise. She singles out his self-conscious, overly grand approach to acting as the reason the mirror scene and the character do not land.

Ide finds the film aggravating, overblown and ultimately empty despite its timely subject. She praises Riz Ahmed’s performance, while criticizing the film’s excess and self-importance.

Bradshaw judges the film a disappointing, shallow, laborious satire. He praises its dreamlike, disturbing imagery, while finding the performances and storytelling weak.

Uhlich dismisses the film as a toothless satire that becomes an ego stroke for Tom Cruise. He singles out the incessant shouting and distorted cinematography as especially grating.

Rooney finds the film an exhausting, self-indulgent failure with little meaningful insight. He particularly criticizes its witless writing and farcical plotting, while noting Riz Ahmed’s performance as a rare source of nuance.

The critic calls the film an audacious, powerful swing that may divide audiences. She praises Tom Cruise’s daring performance and singles out Riz Ahmed as the supporting cast’s standout.

The critic says the film’s nihilistic anger pays off brilliantly and calls it a bold, politically pointed cautionary tale. She especially praises Tom Cruise’s commanding, ego-free performance, highlighting a dizzying sequence before European leaders.

Hammond finds the film an ambitious, divisive satire that ultimately moves and entertains while urging audiences to confront humanity’s destructive choices. He especially praises Tom Cruise’s startling transformation and powerful performance, including a standout monologue.

Perez finds the film divisive but unusually thoughtful, with its audacious shift in perspective making it more layered than its abrasive opening suggests. He praises the visual energy of Emmanuel Lubezki’s long takes, while noting that the film’s relentless intensity and self-consciousness can become exhausting.

The review finds the film ambitious and rewarding despite occasional narrative disjointedness and overworked comedy. It especially praises Tom Cruise’s committed, unconventional performance.

The review finds the film an abrasive, uneven satire that ultimately becomes engaging and admirable. It singles out Tom Cruise’s fearless performance for giving the story emotional depth and scope.

The critic finds Digger an ambitious, often funny but bleakly unsettling apocalypse comedy, though its twists sometimes undercut its message. Tom Cruise’s commanding performance and the film’s uncanny production design stand out for praise.

Sandwell finds Digger ambitious and often entertaining, but ultimately flawed and short on substance. He praises Tom Cruise’s captivating performance and the striking production design, while faulting the script for lacking depth.

Crow finds the film audacious and watchable but ultimately undone by its uneven, self-important satire. He praises Cruise’s hypnotic, unhinged performance, while faulting the film for failing to be funny.

Nayman finds the film overbearing and largely unsuccessful, despite its provocative ideas. He praises the fascination of watching Iñárritu dismantle his own elaborate filmmaking contraptions, while faulting the relentless way the film presses its arguments.

The critic finds the film visually striking but ultimately messy and disappointing. They praise the vivid cinematography and production design, while faulting the over-clever structure and lack of laughs.

Lambie finds the satire shrill and emotionally empty, despite its ambitious ideas. He praises the visual ingenuity and captivating practical effects and set design, but says they cannot give the film anything to cling to.

The critic pans the film as shallow, self-congratulatory satire that pulls its punches. They single out the production design and Tom Cruise’s performance as its strengths.