The Sheer Madness at the Heart of ‘Digger’
The year's biggest box office bust captures Hollywood's worst impulse
There’s nothing wrong with Tom Cruise’s “Digger,” at least on paper.
We have an A-list star (Tom Cruise) stretching his talents in ways we haven’t seen in some time. The story has something to say about the world (Climate Change) and human nature in all its complexities.
Need more?
An Oscar-winning director (Alejandro G. Iñárritu of “The Revenant” fame) challenged his cast team to create something bold and provocative.
Everyone involved must have known that audiences wouldn’t line up to see the film. And, if they did, many would walk away deeply dissatisfied. “Digger” is the anti-crowd pleaser by design.
That’s the proverbial “big swing” in Hollywood – artists willing to alienate audiences to share a provocative story that needed to be told.
You can’t spot a cinematic crime in that list. On paper.
There’s still a major issue with “Digger. It’s a problem that speaks to the heart of Hollywood in 2026, an industry convulsing over too many changes to count.
Why in the wide, wide world of sports would Warner Bros. sink anywhere from $120-160 million (maybe more?) into “Digger,” and that’s before the massive marketing blitz that accompanied it?
“I don’t know what to say. I am intense,” Tom Cruise concluded in a rare sit-down video interview published by GQ Magazine.
The veteran actor was speaking with the magazine as he gears up for the release of Alejandro González Iñárritu’s ‘Digger’ next month. During the…
— Deadline (@DEADLINE) September 17, 2026
In the very best case scenario, “Digger” would draw $30 million in its U.S. debut based on Cruise’s considerable fan base and a curiosity factor. Then, almost undoubtedly, it would sink like a stone. Overseas box office receipts wouldn’t be kind, either.
You don’t need to be a studio head to understand the massive headwinds facing the movie, sight unseen. The movie was destined to lose money.
The only question? How much?
Sure, rave reviews might have staved off the inevitable, but only for a weekend. The reviews were far from “raves,” by and large.
We already know two Warner Bros. executives got their pink slips this week, no doubt in part due to the looming “Digger” catastrophe.
The film’s failure may have other long-term effects.
Dig. Dug. Dead.
WB’s DIGGER is DOA—just $3.4M on Friday (including $1.2M in previews) and an estimated $8M this weekend.
The Brothers Warner bow out with one of the biggest flops in cinematic history. pic.twitter.com/lmR6d42Cd8
— Exhibitor Relations Co. (@ERCboxoffice) October 3, 2026
Hollywood, Inc. may still honor Cruise with a Best Actor nomination. He’s earned endless goodwill for his blockbuster hits over the years. He’s also the industry’s biggest ambassador, thanking audiences for going to the movies.
That matters.
Is that enough to balance losing more than $100 million via “Digger?” That figure could nearly double, depending on the actual budget numbers.
Why not tell the “Digger” story for a much smaller price point? We’ve seen a few dazzling films over the past few years that looked like they spent north of $100 million but instead came in at far less. “The Creator” had all the bells and whistles of a sci-f blockbuster but only cost $80 million.
“Godzilla Minus One” allegedly set its studio back $15 million, or a wee bit less.
Couldn’t Iñárritu and Cruise figure out ways to share “Digger” but not stress-test the Warner Bros. coffers? Had they done so, this weekend’s tragic box office results wouldn’t be the story it is.
Instead, the film may forever be attached to infamous disasters like “Heaven’s Gate” and “Ishtar.” And it all could have been avoided.
Nice Blazing Saddles reference.
I haven’t seen the film. I am a generally a Tom Cruise fan. I didn’t care for the Revenant. I was hoping to see the movie because the teaser was intriguing but after the terrible reviews I decided to pass.
I wish Tom would go back to making movies about really people in real situations. A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire….even Cocktail!
I saw the movie and liked it! I think the reason its being criticized is because they make both sides of climate debate look crazy! John Goodman and Tom Cruise acting is worth the price of admission. Its a bizarre movie and I think it will become popular by word of mouth. It reminded me of Dr. Strangelove! Goodman deserves to be up for an academy award! Cruise deserves recognition also,
This seems more like propaganda than a review. Strange you didn’t mention that AUDIENCES DON’T GIVE A WET FART about CLIMATE CHANGE. Half of us remember the EAST ANGLIA EMAIL SCANDAL where all the the leading scientists, Dr Michale Mann and co., were CAUGHT LYING AND HIDING THE DECLINE OF TEMPS and faking their “hockey stick ” graph to erase middle age warming.
The other half of the country are idiots who think men have vaginas. Either way climate alarmist films DON’T MAKE MONEY unless they are CLOAKED IN SCI -FI or SPECTACLE like The Day After Tomorrow. If you were able to review acting which you are NOT you’d realize that Tom’s acting hasn’t grown a whit since Top Gun. Which is why he chooses monosyllabic vehicles like Mission Impossible that don’t require range OR depth of FEEL..
But tbh this reads like a press release from Tom.
Can’t help thinking this monumental flopzilla was INTENDED to burn money, in some kind of bizarre plot involving the end of Warner Brothers. It seems utterly intentional, using all the time-tested traits of previous cashfires. There was even an Internet rumor campaign in recent weeks, pushing the notion that it was secretly a musical, to ensure it would have next to no patrons in the opening weekend. And it all worked to perfection!
My wife and were the only two people in theater opening night. It was a one of his worst movies.
I’m hearing that from a few folks — empty theaters. Yikes!
Why such massive budgets for movies like this? Where is all that money going? Extravagant sets? Fencing catering? California taxes? I would be interested to see itemized budgets for these things.
* fancy catering
Better question: Where’s all the money coming FROM?
Stinker after dud after bomb but the woke machine still continues its “burn it all down” pursuit of agenda-based-movies. Except it doesn’t all burn down. Somehow it all stays afloat financially. How? It can’t be from box office revenue. So where is the infusion of survival capital coming from? Who benefits from continuing to make movies that hemorrhage money but keep the propaganda alive?
Sounds like a great story for a guy with a movie website to investigate.
That’s the most worthless review I ever read. Nothing about the plot of the movie or anything else of even the slightest relevance.
That’s because it wasn’t a review … it was a box office analysis. The review is linked within the piece.
I walked out of the film just now. Wish I would have read your review before wasting my money. Digger was too on the nose for me. I rarely walk out of films. This one was stylized slop.
who cares it’s a still shit movie, cruise can’t save this crap.
So that leaves me a question, did Hollywood just bring back VistaVision for movies that spew radical left wing propaganda? Because that’s what it looks like, with ‘One Battle After Another’(a pro-Antifa, Anti-ICE movie in disguise), and now ‘Digger’, which wants to bring back the Climate Change alarmism.