Digger (2026)

 

If ever a movie deserves to lose 170 million dollars at the box office it's this misbegotten piece of crap from Academy award-winning director Alejandro G. Iñárritu and actor Tom Cruise. I've said it up front a number of times. I'm a Tom Cruise fan, the idea that this part might be the one that gets Tom an Academy Award for his acting was quite appealing  to me. The director Iñárritu,  created an interesting film that previously won an Academy Award, not my favorite but I could see artistically why it was so important, but “Birdman” and “The Revenant” are a long way from this self-important attempt at satire, which has one maybe funny moment in it, and pretends to be hilarious the rest of the time.

You know your movies are in trouble when 2/3 the way through we have to have a character engage in a long diatribe of exposition about why the thing they are doing is so meaningful. There are going to be plenty of people out there who will try to tell you that this is an Artful film, that it is simply misunderstood by the stupid masses. Don't let them get away with that. A movie can be artistic and crappy, and just because you find it boring or ridiculous or annoying, doesn't mean that you're an idiot who can't appreciate art, it means your taste does not include the choices that the artist made which in this case are obnoxious.

Everything from the beginning of this movie is played in a loud overbearing and preposterous performance. No one, including our main character played by Tom Cruise, is portrayed as believable. I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to tell you that that is intentional. As the story plays out you will discover why the characters act in such mannered and over the top ways. There is a plot device here that is being used to justify manic bellicose shouting, on a permanent basis. Some people will find this to be clever, I thought it was contrived. I did think it was handled as an element of the film very effectively, but the way that clues are dribbled out can be a little frustrating. I know the filmmakers want you to be frustrated about climate change, but what I was frustrated about was the inane approach to the story. I'll give you a spoiler warning in a paragraph or two so you can stop reading if you are worried that I'm giving away too much.

The director is making a bold choice, it certainly seems original on its face. The idea is not without Merit, but the execution is so heavy-handed and self-congratulatory that it is irritating. The fever dream of climate collapse that this movie is projecting is nowhere near a reality. All the climate models are speculation at best, and a lot of them are presented as nightmares to drive a political agenda. That's what this film seems to be doing, this is an attempt to legitimize the wildest fears of climate doomsdayers.  It's also an attempt to poison the Well against anybody who has legitimate questions about whether or not our attempts to alter the weather are worthwhile. Digger Rockwell, is the Boogeyman of every enthusiast of carbon trading, alternative fuels, and the idea of shutting down fossil fuels for the benefit of the planet. It takes a piece of Science Fiction to create a threat that will kill people to stampede folks into accepting the extremes of these cultists. Once again I'm going to hesitate to say too much here until I give you a spoiler warning.

This is supposed to be a satire, and there are people out there who have the audacity to make comparisons to "Doctor Strange Love : or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb". Stanley Kubrick's farce of military and political systems is funny because it's believable. Although there are moments when things are said that are absurdist, they're said by serious people among a variety of other reasonable things that they believe. At no time in “Digger”, does anybody come across as a serious person. Riz Amed is supposed to be a scientist that is the voice of reason, but his characterization is so shallow that you wonder how anybody with his credentials could be so weak-willed and cowed so easily. 

Digger Rockwell himself, as played by Tom Cruise, is the least believable character in the story. His obsession with his pet cat, his fairly cloistered lifestyle, and his physical mannerisms, all give Cruise a chance to flex his acting muscles. Which, by the way, the character can't do because he is so flabby with make up,CGI and costuming the same to emphasize.  We are supposed to laugh, it is outrageous behavior, but he doesn't really exist in contrast to anybody who isn't equally outrageous, except for the occasional video call. Even then those callers are usually dispatched from the story so quickly that they seem like cartoon characters themselves. Besides, the only way Diggers seems able to communicate with anybody is at a hundred and ten decibels. 

Spoiler warning,  spoiler warning, spoiler warning. I'm about to tell you something that is supposed to be a secret in the film, but for which there are hints a half dozen times before the final reveal. If you are quick on the uptake, you will probably figure it out by the second or third break between scenes. So this is only a spoiler for people who don't want to guess what's coming. This is actually a dystopian movie, set 30 years in the future, and what you're seeing is the tech rehearsal of a play. The original version of the play was made 25 years earlier and depicts events that supposedly happened three decades in the past. Cruise is an actor playing an actor playing the part of a megalomaniac billionaire. All the other characters are really caricatures of historical figures that are being mocked in the play. Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu has contrived to create a Wes Anderson film, without any of the charm. We aren't let in on what the hell is going on except occasionally when we see The black out breaks When the theater actors Are changing scenes. Is it technically efficient? Yes. Are the production values Interesting.? Yes. Do the actors sell themselves out as bloviating actors playing to the far back of the theater in a character designed to ridicule the past? Yes they're all doing a good job. But doing a good job that isn't really something worth doing in the first place feels like a waste of talent and time.

There's a moment when Digger Rockwell, supposedly is addressing a gathering of international political figures, and he confesses his crime and offers a rationalization. Except it isn't a rationalization, it's a very legitimate argument about balancing environmental concerns with human welfare. By putting it in the mouth of a preposterous character, and having him shout it while everybody in the background is screaming, is a way of trying to win the argument by making it a joke. This is one of the reasons why I really can't take the film seriously. It never takes itself seriously. It's self-important, but that's not the same thing as being serious. 

I've read a number of people who say that in the future this film will be considered masterful. I doubt that that will be the case. The only people who will find this to be an important and critically deserving film, are those who see “An Inconvenient Truth" as a pressing documentary, instead of a swing at a bad pitch, by those devoted to climate destruction nightmares. 

Those people who are shouting that originality and creativity have been called for by the public, and we are now all hypocrites for ignoring this film, are missing the point. We want originality that will entertain, inform, and move us. What we don't want is to be hectored and demeaned by the artists who are asking us to support them. 

I don't expect anybody to learn any lessons from this movie, One Way or Another. People who are afraid of climate change will continue to be afraid of climate change. People who are worried about what will happen to the world if we start running out of energy, are not going to be convinced to give up their cars, their conditioning, everyday lets us enjoy life, as a result of widespread access to energy. They are just going to feel browbeat by this movie, that's of course if any of them bother to see it. Which apparently they're not going to.

The Revenant

Back in 1971, I saw the Richard Harris, John Huston film "Man in the Wilderness". I was a Boy Scout at the time and while not an expert woodsman, I always thought that I might have what it takes to get through an experience like the one portrayed in the film. That is the fantasy of youth, that we are as great as we might aspire to be. As I watched what is essentially a remake of that film, forty-five years later, I have no illusions. If this were me, I would die. It would be painful and the cold would drive me mad before actually doing me in. The makers of the current film pile on so many obstacles that I'm not sure anyone could visualize themselves in the role that Leonardo DiCaprio plays. As a result, the movie plays less like an adventure film and more like an endurance test. It is well made and has some fantastic sequences but there is a lot to get through and some of it will test your patience.

A trapper, abandoned by his party after being mortally injured, would naturally feel resentment and seek revenge on those who turned their back on him. This story is more direct in building a revenge theme specific to a particular individual than was the case in the 1971 version of the tale. There is also a theme of forgiveness and redemption that follows the character of Hugh Glass. His struggle in punctuated with spiritual messages from past misdeeds as well as visions of his future. The Indians that are tracking him may be profiting from the raid they conduct on his companions but there is another purpose as well, one that mirrors the story of our abandoned frontiersman. It sometimes feels like an awkward attempt to add some balance to the story, but it can occasionally be confusing as well.

I'm inclined to say that the film is centered around three action segments that will dazzle the audience and build immense tension. The first ten or fifteen minutes of the movie involve a violent attack on a group and there are some harsh images that will sometimes be disconcerting. It is staged in a manner that feels very natural and accurate, which makes it even more ominous as it plays out. There is a rumor going around that at Academy Screenings of the film, many older members of the body have walked out in disgust at the level of violence depicted. I don't think it compares the "Saving Private Ryan" levels but it does take one's breath to imagine the intensity of fear that would accompany this event. A short while later is the visual moment that will be the signature image from the film, an attack by a grizzly on the lead character, which leaves him in his near dead condition. Finally, there is a confrontation at the end of the film that quenches the thirst for revenge but also stops short of accepting the consequences of that action. It is a choice that fits in with some of the spiritual elements that the movie has advanced, but it feels like a cliche.

Cliches may be the one weakness of the film. The villain of the piece is a cliche racist that eary on we might understand, but as the story develops we have less and less reason to hope for any resolution other than his annihilation. The wilderness sequences are spectacular to look at but there are so many times when an amazing idea is followed up with an obvious moment. I think I first saw an animal used the way Han uses his tauntan in the "Empire Strikes Back" in an old Robert Taylor movie. After a very creative action moment, the movie inserts a sequence much like this for no particular reason except that it is a survival film and this is one of the survival cliches that has been around a long time. Every chase has a component to it that is fresh and then a moment that is cliched. It is all shot so beautifully that you may not care, but because the pace of the film is so leisurely, I frequently found time to think about things like this. The film is almost two and a half hours long and in many places it feels that way. A little economy of storytelling would make this picture more effective, but that is not to say what we got was a disappointment, it was just not the tension filled action piece that is sold to us. There is a lot of navel gazing at times and it slows down the film enough to notice that you are watching a film.

DiCaprio is fine in the movie although I did not find his performance to be the one that will finally get him his Oscar. In fact, at one point, I had to knock myself out of an internal dialogue because Leo was repeating a moment from "The Wolf of Wall Street" only this time it was for dramatic purposes rather than comedic ones. That is not the kind of thing you want in your head while you are watching an intense drama like this. Alejandro González Iñárritu makes the story visually interesting in the same way he accomplished so much in last year's "Birdman", but it is a little noticeable at times, also reflecting a self awareness that seems out of place. This is an excellent film and I may just be reacting to my expectations, but it did not feel as special as it has been hyped as. The story is grim with only one moment of lightness in the whole 156 minutes, and that may be one of the missing pieces for me. I need to care about the character a lot more and he is never given any personality only a mantle of spirituality that he wears like a mantle of honor, but without much clarity.