Digger
On Sunday, the Writers Guild held a screening of the movie “Digger.” The film has gotten such poor news, with Tom Cruise being ridiculed for his performance, taking a huge chance on an uncommon role under heavy makeup, that I was intrigued enough to go. Out of curiosity afterwards, when I had my opinion, I checked with Rotten Tomatoes, and saw that it had a 53% from critics, although a far-better 74% from the audience. Having seen the movie now -- I agree with the audience. In fact, I liked it more than that, for its audaciousness and craft. And man, is it audacious. I’d probably give it an 80%. (Maybe a bit higher, but we’ll leave it at that.)
I won’t give away any plot points. Just a general reaction. And I'll note that I went in having next to zero idea what the movie was about, since I'd only see the TV ad, and it really doesn't say much in 30 seconds, but just gives some offbeat images.
The movie is definitely flawed, goes over the top, and gets a little confusing -- and if someone didn’t like it, I’d understand. But for me (and that 74% of the audience), it not only was so extremely well-made, but Tom Cruise is also very good , as is John Goodman, and an actor named Riz Ahmed who plays a head scientist.
Moreover, I'll go so far as saying that if enough Motion Picture Academy members watch it, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cruise gets an Oscar nomination. I wouldn’t count on that, since it's still early in the Awards Season and there might be five others that are better, and I also don’t know how many voters will ignore watching the movie, but that’s how good I thought his performance was. (And I say this as someone who does not rush out to see a Tom Cruise movie, but has only seen a few -- liking some, though not all.) Moreover, I greatly admire his taking very risky choices to play the character. And he has a brilliant 5-minute monologue at one point (much of it – I think – in one take; I don't know for sure since I wasn’t paying attention to that until later in the speech, “Hey, wait, is this all…?”). In fact, when his name came on the screen at the end of the film, he got applause from the Writers Guild audience. I also think there’s even a better chance that John Goodman will get a Supporting Actor nomination. He got applause during the movie for one particular long-rant speech he gives. It's a tour-de-force, over-the-top, chew the scenery performance.
I also liked it as a scathing satire of the egos and unchecked power of Elon Musk and Trump, and the dangers of dropping out of the Paris Accord. And while the story does get confusing at one point (to the degree that you sort of sit up and think, wait, hunh, what is going on???), it soon enough becomes more clear, and by the end, I personally found everything very well-explained. And while (without giving anything away) the things that cause this confusion might not be necessary to tell the story, I think that ultimately they are necessary to tell the story as fully as it does, and that the film is more impactful for them.
I have no idea how others feel. Some may hate it, others might be enthralled by it. I wouldn’t argue with anyone who has a different view than me. But while I’d understand the criticisms, I don’t think I’d be convinced by any arguments about them – because I absolutely see the flaws and have thought about them, but find that the strengths (for me) significantly predominate. I’d just accept a person’s criticism as being fair for how they personally looked at the film for their own taste.
I also love the song they play at the end. (I won’t say anything about what the song is either.) In part because I’ve always loved the song (in fact, only a month or so ago, I saw an article about the singer-songwriter and read it – I never knew the person is British), but also in part because it’s a spot-on perfect song for the end of the movie.
Much of the critical news stories about the film have seemingly come from the reviews (which, to be fair, at 53%, weren't horrific -- that's right in the middle) and from a poor box office opening. But that's a result of audiences not going the first week, which has zero to do with their reaction once seeing the movie. It might be more a result of the trailer and TV ads not being convincing enough to get people to go until they heard from friends or -- even more -- either not liking the heavy makeup Tom Cruise had in the ads...or the makeup was so heavy that many people didn't even know what role he played, or that he was in it. Also, the word "disaster" is being thrown around in describing the film -- but that's a result of the cost of the film (estimated around $170 million) and its marketing (around $100 million) in relation to its opening box office. But -- three things: one, opening box office is critical, but word-of-mouth is deeply important, and with a 74% audience score, its ultimate revenue is far from set yet. Two, box office analysis tends to only look at domestic numbers, and while its international opening wasn't good either, it's higher than the domestic, and is currently at $35 million. Still very far below what it needs to break even, but -- see Point #1. And three, how much a movie cost or grosses has absolutely nothing to do with a film's quality, nor what I think of it.
It's also worth noting that the movie a pretty good reaction at the Guild screening. And that's meaningful -- along with that Rotten Tomatoes score -- for how word-of-mouth might spread once people actually see the movie, which (attendance or streaming viewing aside) might get more Academy members to see the film when it comes time to voting. And again, for all its high-energy flaws, it's a very well-crafted movie. And one which, critics aside, audiences seem to like.
I wish there were some standalone scenes from the movie that I could embed here, since I thought that would give a better sense of the film, rather than a lot of quick cuts in a trailer or ad that might get people to thing, "Hmm, what exactly is going on." But alas, there are none yet. However, the trailer (which I hadn't seen) is better than the TV ads, since it at least is able to deal with the story a bit more and show more of the performances (which still doesn't come close to doing them justice). And so, we'll go with that.
And as a bonus, I'm going to include a two-minute feature with Tom Cruise talking about the film with the director Alejandro G. Iñárritu, two-time Oscar-winner for Birdman and The Revenant, along with a few clips from the movie and behind-the-scenes, which gives a slightly extended sense of the film.
Comments