In his riskiest role since Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 indie classic “Magnolia,” the top A-list actor of the past three decades, Tom Cruise, plays an oil magnate named Digger, the title character in Alejandro Inarritu’s latest over-the-top folly – an unnecessarily loud, screamy affair which takes aim at environmental polluters with such a heavy hand as to render its noble intentions essentially worthless. “Digger” is perhaps the biggest swing-and-miss since Kevin Costner’s “Waterworld.” I cannot recall any recent film so bold and self-satisfied as this one – a film which uses a proverbial sledgehammer to kill a housefly (not to belittle the importance of protecting our world).
Cruise’s Digger character has been systematically abusing what’s left of the environment for years – a trait he inherited from his grandfather, who built this company from nothing, with his bare hands, two nickels to rub together, blah blah blah. In another overblown performance, John Goodman plays U.S. President Compson, who has enabled Digger to exploit the natural resources of the world by relaxing environmental regulations and punishing those who stand in his way. (If this sounds political, “Digger” is not a political film; it takes place in the future, and the whole of humanity is deemed guilty for not acting decades sooner.)
The action begins when a subterranean methane gas leak breaks off a chunk of Greenland the size of Maryland and sets it on a collision course with Norway. Environmental safety expert Dr. Ganesh (a funny Riz Ahmed, in the film’s only good performance) warns that most of Norway’s population could die, and the resulting tidal wave could wipe out much of Northern Europe. Borrowing a page from “Wag the Dog,” Inarritu’s screenplay – co-written with Alexander Dinelaris Jr., Nicolas Giacobone, and Sabina Berman – concentrates Digger’s efforts on controlling the narrative rather than (a) apologizing to the world, or (b) actively doing something about it.
As President Compson is undergoing treatment for late-stage rectal cancer – a disease inserted into the script for apparent laughs, even though it is inherently not the least bit funny – Vice President Eddie (no last name ever provided) travels to Europe with Digger to a meeting of the European Council and offers a mealy-mouthed acknowledgement of his country’s failure to act years earlier. He’s played by Michael Stuhlbarg, who practically cries when his admission is met with jeers from the European leaders.
Then making a grand appearance to “re-direct” the audience to supporting him and his company, Digger sets forth on a speech which at first rivals that of Ned Beatty years ago in “Network,” who used everything in his playbook to convince a wayward newscaster to refocus on the news. But Cruise hammers so forcefully we soon see the error of this failed film’s way – that it has nothing constructive to say! When he returns to his planning room, he and the supposedly ill president (who is apparently healthy enough to make the trek to Europe but not speak before the assembled leaders) engage in a shouting match that makes Blake Edwards’ “S.O.B.” seem docile.
But the worst aspect of “Digger” is one that I cannot mention, lest I give away the film’s “gimmick.” Remember Adam McKay’s 2018 “Vice” – a pseudo biopic of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney? Recall when the film’s closing credits began rolling about 45 minutes in? Many viewers were left thinking the film was over and that they had wasted their money on a picture barely long enough to fill an hour of television time. Then we heard Cheney’s phone ring loudly, waking him up in the middle of the night. It was then-candidate George W. Bush calling to ask Cheney to run for vice president and join him on the 2000 presidential ticket.
This technique supposedly signaled the beginning of the downward spiral of Cheney’s life and his once admirable place in history. But instead, it signaled a joke from the director. If McKay weren’t serious enough about the material, how were we supposed to take it seriously? The same is true of “Digger.” There’s a whole other layer to this film that I am unable to mention without giving away “the big reveal.” But the big reveal is nothing but a joke. Again, if Inarritu doesn’t have any more faith in the material that he can’t take it seriously, how does he expect us to? Suffice to say that “Digger” is not all it’s cracked up to be.
I’ve had my share of issues with Inarritu’s films over the years. I was not a fan of either “Birdman” or “The Revenant,” but I did love his 2022 Spanish language epic “Bardo,” which was sort of a Mexican take on Fellini’s “8 1/2.” I had it on my Top Ten List that year. Inarritu likes to swing big. He’s always aiming for the home run, as it were. Paul Thomas Anderson does too, but his projects almost always land where they’re supposed to. Inarritu simply isn’t that skilled. And this one is his worst effort yet.
And Cruise (also one of the film’s producers) is initially borderline brilliant in his ridiculously excessive portrayal of the Texas tycoon. Lathered in enough make-up and prosthetics to fill a Revlon counter, Cruise embodies the stereotype of his character but unfortunately offers nothing more than exaggerated aplomb. Picture a boilerplate loudmouth, overconfident Texas business magnate prancing about his mansion screaming instructions to his subordinates, and you have Cruise’s character. Nothing more, nothing less. Simply an overwrought Johnny One-Note hammering away as Inarritu’s screenplay digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole – far too deep and wide to ever climb out. In a way, it’s sad to see “Digger” bomb so wholly and completely, but hey, you swing big, you miss big.
