Digger is a memorable representation of political discourse in 2026. With an unforgettable plot twist, director Iñárritu unites beautiful crafts with a huge performance from Tom Cruise. Even if you hate this film, it will linger in your mind. 

This review will contain spoilers.

We open with the morning routine of Digger Rockwell (Tom Cruise). A billionaire oil executive wakes up like all of us, and begins his day. Beautiful, warm wood envelopes his mansion. Digger’s costuming is immediately specific and recognizable, pairing silk pajamas with cowboy boots and an ear piece for yelling through calls. A long pinkie nail is a tool for Digger to feed his cat Maggie tuna, played by an immediately iconic puppet. A bubbling score plays as we watch Digger go about his morning routine in a succinct display of character. We learn of an explosion at a pipeline owned by Digger, causing a massive iceberg to drift into the ocean. We are introduced to numerous characters blustering into the events of the film: John Goodman as the broad President Compson and Sandra Huller as Emma, the half-sister of Digger. Riz Ahmed creeps in as scientist Ganesh, warning Digger of the consequences of letting this iceberg hit Europe. After a cabinet meeting, we sit for a moment with President Compson and Digger as they take in the otherworldly beauty of Digger’s estate. A tree falls. A hand reaches out to fix the miniature. We learn, in a stunning twist, that we are watching a satirical play of Digger Rockwell’s life, decades in the future looking back on this period in history. 

It is a heady thing to witness as an audience member. When the film Digger was first announced, all that was revealed was the film’s simple synopsis: “The most powerful man in the world embarks on a frantic mission to prove he is humanity’s savior before the disaster he’s unleashed destroys everything.” This synopsis felt secure in Tom Cruises’ recent oeuvre, a comfortable role for Ethan Hunt and Maverick. The intriguing part was his decision to work with Alejandro González Iñárritu. This initial intrigue was found to be correct with the first plot twist of the film. “The play within the film” element of this story immediately calls to mind Birdman (2014), with its monologues gesturing to modern discourse (see: Birdman’s Emma Stone’s plea for relevance vs Digger’s Jesse Plemons’ intervention over divisiveness), intense shouting matches over creative differences, and frantic editing. Scenes in Digger are staged like a play, with actors bursting in and out of rooms and Emmanuel Lubezki’s wide shots capturing the whole set. 

I think about what the film would feel like without this twist. We would not have the later reveal of Jesse Plemons’ identity as a member of the Rockwell family, funding this play as a sort of cultural exorcism. Plemons’ character follows a long line of billionaires funding the arts, from Carnegie to the movie studio Annapurna. Usually this is for cultural relevance, and Digger immediately becomes more interesting with this second plot revelation. Without this play twist, we would lose the framework that this is a future generation looking back on today, on the excesses and failures of power. We would lose the unsettling – if a bit unnecessary – final scene of this dystopian future. I think the film would be weaker without this twist, as Iñárritu’s fascination with performance is intriguing. 

Digger has become very divisive, mimicking the politick the film gestures at in Jesse Plemons’ third act monologue. Plemons appeals to the crew crowded around him, debating the ethics and backstory of the figure of Digger Rockwell, imploring that “you’re all right.” 

You’re all right. Maybe this is Iñárritu’s meta nod to the – I’m already getting sick of this word– divisive nature of political discourse in the West. Discourse has become a performance of Twitch streams and provocative slurs. As Digger states his cause, his thesis, his sermon to the European Parliament, the podium literally moves like we are watching Hamilton or Hadestown and the background performers chant in chorus. 

The dystopian future of Digger, with armed police and masks, gestures towards Alfonso Cuarón’s 2006 masterpiece, Children of Men. Children of Men is the stronger film, and it is far more subtle. During Digger’s speech (monologue) to the European Parliament, a shoe gets thrown at Digger. Obviously, this is a reference to George Bush’s shoe throwing incident, where an activist screamed at the president for the Iraq War and the US’s foreign policy. I bring up Children of Men to emphasize how broad the thememaking of Digger is in comparison. Children of Men also has a reference to US policy in the Middle East, featuring a stunning reference to the infamous photo of US-backed torture that occurred during the War on Terror. The difference is, this blink-and-you-miss it peak at the prisoner is in the background of a hectic shot. Children of Men is more unsettling due to its realism and immediacy. Digger is a very different movie, more interested in ideas of the creation of art and perspective. With Digger, we are not in the world of the film, we are in a staged approximation of the world.

The trailer of Digger is a misdirect. Digger doesn’t work to prevent the iceberg from hitting Europe. The iceberg hits, and the US sits by and watches. There is something stunning about watching a film from a director from the Global South featuring images of Europe facing climate disasters. This is not to suggest that Europe is not facing horrible flooding already. But climate change disproportionately affects those in the Global South. These clips, paired with Digger’s monologue about the West’s insatiable greed for oil, bring to mind the quote:

Climate change will manifest as a series of disasters viewed through phones with footage that gets closer and closer to where you live until you’re the one filming it. 

Digger’s divisiveness (there’s that word again) comes in part from its multitude of references to “current events.” We have a Vice President who is decked out in the American flag, an exact copy of Pete Hegseth’s corny suits. We have an unhinged, clearly unwell, president. There is a moment where Digger is filmed with a cell phone during his monologue to Parliament, and the camera quite literally switches to vertical. We watch Tom Cruise filming himself on a cellphone. I do wonder if critics’ knee-jerk eye-rolls to these references to modern politics forget the perspective of the filmmaker creating this work. Iñárritu is a Mexican man, making a film not only about America, but the world facing the consequences of a handful of American men. I wonder if something can be said for the divide in American critical response and international response to the film. Americans are so oversaturated by the president and political discourse. Perhaps we just don’t go to the movies for it.

We need to meet movies where they are. Digger’s broad satire works because it is far enough from reality to become something entirely different. It is made even more interesting by this story being a future humanity looking back on us now – in 2026. It’s unsettling to think about. Digger is a rewatchable (for the twist alone – I am imagining rewatching the film with this context), and a big swing from Iñárritu. I welcome its existence, and find that any film that lingers in my mind like this work is a valuable viewing experience.

Grade: B

Oscar Prospects:
Likely: None
Should Be Considered: Best Lead Actor (Tom Cruise), Best Supporting Actor (Riz Ahmed), Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Film Editing, Best Production Design

Where to Watch: In Theaters