Digger (2026) Movie Review: Swimming Through Satire and Nostrils.

Bloop. Ahoy there!

Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s 2026 dark comedy, Digger, was originally titled Blah, Blah, Blah, but the director jokingly said it was too complex. We would have preferred the title Bloop, Bloop, Bloop, but that’s just us.

We also would have preferred not having to stare up into people’s nostrils throughout the entire film. Bizarre low camera angles indeed.

Another bizarre thing about this film is the budget. Currently, it’s floating between $160 and $180 million. That is a lot of seashells for a movie with little to no VFX! 

Was this supposed to be a musical? We are asking for help here. Anywho, it wasn’t all bad. Let’s swim right into it!

WARNING: ENTERING SPOILER-INFESTED WATERS

(We’ll let you know when it’s safe to swim back to the surface.)

The Original Synopsis: The most powerful man in the world embarks on a frantic mission to prove he is humanity’s savior before the disaster he unleashed destroys everything.

Let us start by saying, “What the bloop is that?!”

The ACTUAL Synopsis: A frustrated stage actor struggles to complete a satirical play about a real-world catastrophe. He battles the script’s inaccuracies while worrying about the safety of his daughter.

Was the actual synopsis supposed to be a twist? Why the studio and marketing team decided to keep this a secret is mind-numbing. But we are fish, what do we know?

Tom Cruise does his best to keep this movie afloat while playing two characters, and he’s honestly quite good. Our issue isn’t with his dual performance, but with the characters themselves, especially Digger. For the most part, Digger is borderline insufferable. Bloop.

THE PROS

• Solid Performances: Sandra Hüller earned our swimming ovation, and the entire supporting cast was fantastic.
• Fantastic Sets: We would love to put a few fish tanks in these set pieces. The production design was top-notch.
• Artistic Transitions: The seamless visual shifts from “real world” locations to stage sets were incredibly impressive.
• Sound & Score: Great sound mixing and a solid score. Not much to bloop about here!
• Transformative Makeup: Tom Cruise’s physical transformation was an amazing achievement that deserves way more chatter.

CAUGHT IN THE NET (MIXED FEELINGS)

• The Story: It probably looked great on paper, but the subtext sank due to a weak execution.
• Cinematography: The lighting was excellent, but those bizarre low camera angles? Bloop.
• Uneven Editing: There may be a stronger movie hidden in this footage somewhere. It just did not make the final cut.
• Hit-or-Miss Dialogue: The exposition flowed naturally, but some lines sank straight to the ocean floor.

THE CONS:

• Cannibalizing Our Cousins: We are outraged about him eating tuna on the plane! How would you feel if we served your cousin on a plate? Bloop!!!
• Unlikable Leads: Tom Cruise’s “Digger” is awful, and his actor counterpart is not much better.
• Zero Character Arcs: If anyone actually grew or changed in this movie, please let us know.
• The Polar Bear Speech: This centerpiece scene was on the verge of becoming insufferable.
• Dissatisfying Execution: Despite some artistic flair, the final product left a bad taste in our gills.

THE ENDING EXPLAINED:

Fans cheer as the curtain closes on the 25th-anniversary stage play. This performance is based on a tragic real-world event. As far-fetched as it sounds, that is exactly what happens. The true twist is revealed when the crowd puts on oxygen masks just before leaving the theater. The catastrophic events portrayed in the play actually caused the terrible, toxic state the world is currently living in.

Here is that word again: bloop… sorry, bizarre. It was a bizarre choice to push a subtext suggesting people are fine with tragic events, just as long as they can still be entertained by them at the end of the day.

Whatever… And that’s exactly where this film lands on our rating.

END SPOILERS

Overall, we have placed this movie on the “Whatever” tier for now. Depending on which side of the ocean bed we wake up on, our thoughts could change. Strong performances and fantastic set pieces save this film from being flushed forever due to its weak story execution and bizarre framing choices.

FISHY FUN FACT:

Did you know that Digger had a fake working title during production? Before it was officially revealed as Digger, the film was shot for six months under the codename Judy!

Article by Dee Jay Fish