House of Horror – How Universal Pictures Built an Empire Off of Monster Movies

Every major studio in Hollywood seems to have it’s origin story about how they came to conquer their chunk of the movie industry.  For Disney, it was all started by a mouse.  For Warner Brothers, they were a family business that knew what the audiences wanted.  And Paramount became it’s own icon when founder Adolf Zukor looked out his office window to see a mountain peak in the distance.  These are all the things that made these studios more than just a business, but also a brand; the thing that made their names known throughout the world.  Universal Pictures had a story just like the rest, but their origin story was a fairly different kind of one.  The oldest studio in Hollywood still running today, Universal Pictures is known for a lot of different kinds of movies, but only one genre can be credited for making them the powerhouse that they are today; horror movies.  Universal was the industry leader when it came to delivering chilling thrillers for audiences, and to this day they are still leading the way in delivering crowd-pleasing horror movies thanks to their long term partnership with the Blumhouse production company.  While Universal horror movies are noteworthy for their chilling atmosphere and iconic scares, more than anything else what has helped to make their movies iconic are the actual monsters themselves.  Universal Monsters have become a brand all on their own, becoming not just a staple in their cinematic output over the years, but also within their theme parks as well.  Some of these characters are sourced from literature, but a couple of others were invented by Universal themselves and have joined the pantheon of celebrated monsters within the whole of pop culture.  While we view these movie monsters through the prism of how Universal markets them as a brand today, it’s also worth noting that their presence in Universal Pictures history is foundational to the studio as a whole, and it could be said that Universal wouldn’t be what it is today had it not been for these Monsters.  It’s a tale that goes all the way back to Universal’s early years, and the fact that the Monsters continue to be a key presence in the studio’s identity today is a real testament to their legacy both on and off the screen.

Carl Laemmle founded Universal Studios in 1912, and in less than a year of starting their production company, Universal made their first ever monster movie.  It was a simple two reel adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1913), but this would be the beginning of something much bigger down the road.  In 1915, Laemmle’s company had done well enough for them to aggressively expand.  Universal moved out of New York City and came to Los Angeles, where Laemmle bought a large parcel of land just off of the Cahuenga Pass in the San Fernando Valley.  Over 100 years later, modern day Universal Studios Hollywood still occupies that same parcel of land, which is now called Universal City.  In the early days of the lot, Universal had built a large variety of outdoor sets, and even charged admission for guests to come and watch the movies getting made, since everything was still shot with no recorded sound.  In one corner of the studio you would have an old Western town set up and then on another corner there would be the walls of a medieval castle, all within a few feet of each other.  One particular space on the studio lot would prove to be very important to the development of the studio, and that space has since become known as “Little Europe.”  The Little Europe sets were made to look like a 19th century European village, with cobblestone streets and open public squares.  The construction of this set helped to open up Universal’s abilities to film movies with European settings in the glow of the California sun.  During this time, Universal had a movie star that was quickly rising in esteem as a man know for a thousand faces.  Lon Chaney’s greatest talent as a movie actor was his ability to completely disappear into a role.  He pioneered many techniques in make-up effects, transforming his face into many different kinds of characters, including monstrous ones.  When he came to Universal in 1917, he had a desire to play one of the most notable literary characters of the 19th century; Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923).  Chaney’s performance as the Hunchback became such a hit with audiences that it prompted Universal to greenlight another ambitious adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera (1925), giving Chaney another chance to disappear into another screen monster.  With these two movies, Universal began to establish itself as the home of cinema’s most iconic monsters, and it was only just the beginning.

Sadly, Lon Chaney’s career did not last long after the roaring successes of his early horror movies.  He died suddenly in 1930 at the age of 47, leaving behind an amazing body of work of which he was also the driving creative force.  He only ever made a single sound film, The Unholy Three (1930), and one would imagine that he would’ve adapted well to the sound era if he had survived.  But, even though Universal lost a pioneer with Chaney, they had a few more daring filmmakers who were ready to pick up the mantle at the studio.  Two filmmakers in particular would become instrumental in creating more than just horror movies for Universal; they would be the ones who gave Universal it’s identity as the home of the monsters.  These filmmakers were Tod Browning and James Whale.  Whale was an English born artist who had come to Hollywood as a producer of stage play adaptations being made for the silver screen.  He came under contract with Universal with the adaptation of Waterloo Bridge (1931), a WWI set drama.  Universal granted him permission to create any movie he wanted afterwards, and Whale landed on making an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s gothic horror classic Frankenstein (1931).  At the same time Tod Browning, a one-time circus performer turned filmmaker, had been with Universal since 1919 and would go on to direct many films there, including several with Lon Chaney.  After Chaney’s death, Browning wanted to keep horror alive at the studio, so he pitched them the idea of adapting Bram Stoker’s horror novel Dracula (1931) to the big screen.  There was famously a failed attempt to secure the rights to the novel from Stoker’s stubbornly protective estate, which led to the legendary German filmmaker F. W. Murnau to create the legal distinct but still very similar Nosferatu in 1922.  For Universal, their plan was to base their adaptation on a stage adaptation rather than the book itself, which they could secure the rights to.  One other thing would also be noteworthy about Dracula at Universal, as it would be the first ever talkie horror film.  This would be a breakthrough for the genre, and as it was following in the pipeline right behind it, James Whale’s Frankenstein would also go into production with sound as well.  Together, these two productions would leave a lasting legacy on the studio that still can be felt nearly a century later.

What mattered more than anything else with these productions was who would be cast in these iconic roles of Count Dracula and Frankenstein’s monster.  Tod Browning initially wanted his longtime collaborator and friend Lon Chaney to play the part, but Chaney’s death unfortunately brought that plan to end.  After some time searching, Browning and his team came across a tall and imposing Hungarian actor named Bela Ferenc Deszo Blasco, who was going by the stage name Bela Lugosi.  Lugosi had been playing the role on stage for years in America, so he already had a good handle on the character already.  Today, it’s hard to imagine anyone else in the role.  Bela’s whole persona seems inexorably tied to the Transylvanian count, with every portrayal of the character thereafter taking some cue from Bela’s performance.  What is remarkable is just how much Bela was able to instill fear without doing much on screen.  There isn’t a lot of onscreen violence shown, just the suggestion of horror.  But Bela strikes just a hypnotic presence on screen that you can’t help but be chilled to the bone when he delivers his unnerving stare.  Not to be outdone, James Whale managed to find the right person to bring Frankenstein’s creature to life.  An English actor named William Henry Pratt tried to create a more exotic identity for himself, so he adopted the stage name of Boris Karloff.  He had been making the rounds of stage work in both Canada and America, before eventually coming to Hollywood in 1919. Karloff’s striking features helped him to land roles in many movies, notably playing villains for the most part.  He already had 81 screen credits by the time James Whale selected him to play the monster in Frankenstein.  The role would be physically demanding.  Karloff was an average 5’11” in height, but to play the gigantic monster he had to wear four inch platform boots as well as a bulky costume to give his skinny frame more mass.  And yet, it came together as Karloff’s creature was instantly iconic.  While some of the features of the character were taken from Shelley’s original descriptions in her novel, James Whale and Karloff added their own unique touches, like the flattop shape to the creature’s head, and the bolts sticking out of his neck.  Just like with Lugosi’s Dracula, Karloff’s portrayal of Frankenstein’s creature would have a lasting impact on all the versions of the character that followed thereafter.

Universal Monster movies as a brand really started due to the massive success of these two films, and thanks to the iconic portrayals from both Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff.  On the heels of the success of the Frankenstein, Universal wanted James Whale to create a follow-up sequel, and they granted him a massive amount of creative control.  From this, The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) was made.  Whale would expand on the story of the original novel, taking the concept of the creature coercing Dr. Frankenstein to make him a mate in his own likeness and expanded it into a feature length story.  In this film, the Bride herself would actually be brought to life, and she herself would join the ranks of the iconic Universal Monsters.  In the movie she would be played by English actress Elsa Lanchester, who did double duty by also playing Mary Shelley herself in an opening prologue.  Lanchester’s appearance as the Bride is brief, coming in right at the end of the movie, but she was instantly iconic with her white flowing robes and the lightning strike strips of white in her beehive hairdo.  Karloff also returned to reprise his role as the creature and even gave the character the power of speech in the film for the first time.  After playing Frankenstein’s creature the first time, Karloff also would led his star power to bringing to life another horror movie icon, The Mummy.  In The Mummy (1932), Karloff would portray Imhotep, the cursed Egyptian undead monster wrapped head to toe in his mummification wrappings.  The character was inspired by the fairly recent unearthing of the tomb of King Tutankhamun, and he would also be the first original monster developed for the silver screen, as opposed to the previous ones that were adapted from literary sources.  James Whale would also successfully bring another iconic literary monster to the big screen with 1933’s The Invisible Man, starring Claude Rains in his first major movie role.  Unfortunately, due to the Hays Code, there were fewer horror films made in the later half of the 1930’s.  James Whale chose not to work under the stricter code placed on Hollywood, and he faced higher social pressure due to his homosexuality being at odds with much of the rest of American society at the time, so he left Universal and Hollywood behind.  Tod Browning also saw his career decline, especially after his controversial film Freaks (1932) flopped at the box office.

But, even as horror went into decline, Universal still found success with their collection of Monsters.  In 1939, Boris Karloff would play the creature one more time in Son of Frankenstein.  And this time, hew would be sharing the screen with Bela Lugosi, not as Dracula mind you, but as another original character who would go on to appear in many other horror movies thereafter; Ygor.  Though Universal would go on to make more Frankenstein films thereafter, this one would mark the last time Karloff would play the role.  It also marked the end of Bela’s time at Universal as well.  But with the departure of these two icons, another actor with a legacy at Universal would step in and keep the monster movies coming.  Lon Chaney, Jr. picked up his father’s mantle and would also become an actor of a thousand faces.  Chaney did play Frankenstein’s monster in the movie The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), but Chaney left a bigger mark by bringing to life a whole other movie monster with his portrayal of The Wolf Man.  Using the same make-up techniques that his father pioneered, Chaney Jr. completely transformed and gave Hollywood it’s first truly iconic portrayal of a werewolf.  Lon Cheney Jr. would continue to make many more horror movies over the years until his death in 1973, but it’s his portrayal in The Wolf Man (1941) that has cemented him as an icon within the monster movie pantheon.  In the post-war years, the horror movie genre would go through many changes.  The major studios began to invest less in the horror genre, and smaller independent companies were filling that hole left behind, leading to the era of B-movie horror.  But even still, Universal would still invest a bit in the legacy of their monsters.  And with the invention of new gimmicks like 3D, they even managed to make another horror film that added even more to their roster of movie monsters.  In 1954, Univeral shot a small little horror thriller on a pond located in the middle of their lot.  This pond would serve as a setting for a place in the Amazon jungle called the Black Lagoon, and living inside it was a fish man creature that was preying on human beings.  The Creature From the Black Lagoon suddenly became another horror movie icon that Universal could proudly tout as one of their own.  With his movie shot in 3D, the film became a hit with younger audiences and he would be the last big addition to Universal’s movie monsters for a long while.

What is interesting is how Universal has managed to keep these characters in the public’s eyes for all these decades after.  Even long after Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Sr. and Jr. have left these characters behind, their iconic status has endured.  Universal Studios still is very much aware of how much these horror icons matter to their identity.  That’s why their theme parks still carve out space for these monsters to be represented.  There are references to these characters in almost every Universal park, and in the freshly opened Epic Universe park in Orlando, Florida, the Universal Monsters have a land devoted just to them.  Traces of the history of these films can still be found at the original Universal Studios in Hollywood.  The sets for “Little Europe” that were used extensively for these early monster movies sadly burned down in a fire on the studio lot in 1967.  A replica of the original sets was constructed on the same spot, and that re-construction still survives to this day.  The Court of Miracles section in particular can still be recognizable when compared to scenes that were shot there for The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) and Frankenstein (1931).  The pond that played the part of the Black Lagoon is also still present on the lot, though it’s been more recently crowded in by construction of new soundstages on the property.  And today, these iconic locations mingle with some of the more recent movie monsters that have come from Universal Pictures, like the Bates Motel from Psycho (1960), the shark from Jaws (1975), and an encounter with Peter Jackson’s version of King Kong (2005).  And the park’s yearly tradition of Halloween Horror Nights also heavily feauture appearances from all of the Universal Monsters.  The characters also have their own merchandise wing in the stores at Universal.  It’s a clear sign that Universal is still aware of the strong legacy these characters have, and they are determined to maintain ownership of that legacy.  While some of their characters belong to the public domain like Dracula and Frankenstein, others are wholly original to their movies, and they very much want to spotlight that.  While many other studios can try to make monster movies, Universal can firmly state that their foundation was built off of these characters.

It’s harder today to know exactly how to keep marketing oneself as the home of movie monsters.  Universal famously failed hard trying to make their movie monsters exist with a shared cinematic universe similar to what Marvel had done with their super heroes.  The ill-fated Dark Universe crashed and burned after just two movies; the box office bombs of Dracula Untold (2017) and The Mummy (2017).  But, out of the ashes of this Dark Universe experiment came a different way of bringing these characters up to the modern day, with a partnership that Universal has with independent production company Blumhouse.  Blumhouse managed to reinvent some of Universal’s iconic monsters with more modern takes.  Filmmaker Leigh Whanell got to do his fresh new takes on The Invisible Man (2020) and Wolf Man (2025).  There’s also visionary director Robert Eggers whose been working with Universal’s art house label Focus Features to create visually daring movies based on characters similar to the Universal movie monsters, such as Nosferatu (2024) and Werwulf (2026) coming out later this year.  But even as Universal makes several attempts to keep monster movies going at their studio, the original classics still hold a lot of power.  They undeniably wrote the rules of how to make horror work within the Hollywood machine.  And that has inspired generations of horror filmmakers over the years.  Oscar-winning filmmaker Guillermo Del Toro was particularly influenced by Universal horror, and his home almost acts like a museum devoted to the legacy of those movies, especially Frankenstein, which Del Toro finally got to make his own version of last year to great acclaim.  Hell, his Best Picture-winning The Shape of Water (2017) owes it’s very existence to the legacy of The Creature From the Black Lagoon.  The fact that most depictions of Count Dracula today still speak with a vaguely Hungarian accent (yes even the one on Sesame Street) and most depictions of Frankenstein’s monster still have those bolt in the neck are undeniable signs that Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff’s performances are still the gold standard for these characters.  That’s why Universal continues to value these characters; because they endure well beyond just their presence on the big screen.  They are icons that continue to be a presence in the culture at large, and Universal is largely responsible for getting them to that place.  Even with all of the great movies that Universal Pictures has released over the years outside of the horror genre, it’s these monster movies that clearly helped to give Universal it’s most important identity.  After nearly a century in the game, the Universal Monsters are no where near forgotten, and hopefully they allow Universal to keep scaring audiences again and again for another century.

Digger – Review

It’s been said that Tom Cruise is the last true movie star in Hollywood.  Cruise has been active now for over 40 years in the business, and is showing no signs of slowing down, even as he starts to head towards retirement age.  Now at the age of 64, Cruise is still putting himself in death-defying action sequences that test his physical abilities, choosing to do as much of his own stunt work as he can.  And it’s helped to keep him relevant in the public’s eye, even as most of his peers have begun to slow down.  It was only a 4 short couple years ago that we saw Tom Cruise achieve his biggest box office success ever with the mega-hit Top Gun: Maverick, and in the next couple of years we are going to see him again take to the skies in another Top Gun sequel, as well as go behind the wheel again in a Days of Thunder sequel.  But as fun as all these action films may be, there’s one thing that has long been absent in his resume, and that’s a performance in a non-action movie.  We’ve seen a lot of Tom Cruise the movie star, but not enough of Tom Cruise the actor.  And here’s the thing, we know he can act, and act very well.  Some of his best work has not been in action movies, but rather in more serious films like Born on the Fourth of July (1989), A Few Good Men (1992), and of course Jerry Maguire (1996).  We’ve seen Cruise spend so much time running, jumping, and punching in these Mission: Impossible movies over the last decade, that we forget that there is this other side to him.  It’s perhaps that he’s been less inclined to move outside of his comfort zone in recent years, and has been more interested in testing his physical limits on the big screen more than his acting chops.  But, we know they are still there.  Even in action mode, Cruise still delivers some solid performances and he’s always a charismatic presence in every movie he makes.  What would be preferable is if he added more variety to his filmography; a little drama or comedy mixed in with all the action tentpoles.  In addition, he should also look towards working with more prestige directors, who would be able to bring that thespian side out of him more.

As shown before, there was a time when Cruise was able to work with prestige filmmakers, even while his star was rising.  He’s gotten to work with Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Oliver Stone, and Paul Thomas Anderson throughout the years, all Oscar-winning filmmakers.   But one thing that’s changed in the last couple decades or so is that Cruise has taken on more of a leadership role in the movies he makes.  He’s been the producer as well as the star of the Mission: Impossible and Top Gun movies, and as producer he’s also been the creative driving force as well, meaning that he’s been very selective of the filmmakers he’s chosen to work with.  Now, the filmmakers he’s chosen to make these movies have been Christopher McQuarrie and Joseph Kosinski, both very accomplished and skilled filmmakers, but they are also filmmakers that defer a lot of creative control over to Cruise in the process of making these movies.  As a result, Cruise probably is not the kind of actor that checks his ego at the door to conform to the demands of a more auteur filmmaker.  It’s probably why he hasn’t worked with the likes of Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, or Wes Anderson; filmmakers who make their movies in a very specific way that does not leave much room for a movie star like Tom Cruise to take over.  But, then again, there was a time when Tom Cruise would go out of way to accommodate his schedule if it meant working with one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.  Cruise and his then wife Nicole Kidman famously spent nearly a full year filming what would be the legendary Stanley Kubrick’s last film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999).  This of course happened at a time when Cruise was in less control of the movies he was in, but it also shows that he was capable of being accommodating to the filmmaker’s preferred process.  It’s been a long time since we’ve seen Cruise bring his talents as an actor to a film that is far more filmmaker driven, but surprisingly that very thing has finally happened again this year.  To the surprise of many, we learned that Cruise would be teaming up with Alejandro G. Iñárritu, the Oscar winning filmmaker behind Birdman (2014) and The Revenant (2015) for a new film.  Iñárritu is another filmmaker with a specific way of making movies, so the fact that Cruise was willing to work with him was a great sign that he was indeed ready to tap back into his more thespian side and actually show off his acting skills once again.  The only question is, did the experiment work or did the movie manage to miss as both an acting showcase and as a filmmaking exercise.

The movie Digger tells the story of an oil baron named Digger Rockwell (Tom Cruise), who lives in the laps of luxury with his cat Maggie, who is barely clinging onto life.  Digger has been able to become the largest oil producer in the world thank to his collusion with the President of the United States, President Compson (John Goodman), who has allowed Digger to expand his operations into arctic regions such as Alaska and Greenland.  While his company is drilling in Greenland, Digger’s equipment breaks open a methane pocket trapped under the ice, and this cause a massive crack in the ice shelf.  Suddenly, a land slide sends a massive chunk of the ice shelf three times the size of Washington D.C. into the ocean water, with the currents carrying it into the North Sea.  Now, because of the activities of Digger’s company, the northern coasts of Europe are facing catastrophic flooding and damage from this giant iceberg, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and costs of trillions of dollars to the economies in the region.  In an attempt to divert attention away from their own incompetent oversight, Digger and President Compson look ways to spin the disaster to their advantage.  Digger tries to push forward the idea that he alone will be the savior of the world, even while his own business is making these kind of disasters more common.  Digger’s ignorance of the true situation puts him more at odd with his sister Emma Rockwell (Sandra Huller), who has been spear-heading a more green energy initiative with their family wealth, and raises the concerns of the head of his company’s environmental safety, Dr. Ganesh (Riz Ahmed).  But even despite all of the misinformation that Digger and the Compson administration has been spreading, the disasters still happen, and Digger becomes more and more of a pariah in the eyes of people across the world.  In addition, President Compson is having his own battle with cancer, which is leading him to become more delusional and desperate.  When it becomes know that another massive ice shelf has detached and is making it’s way across ocean waters towards the Alaskan Coastline, things potentially could become even worse, as the nuclear option is put on the table.  How will the world manage to survive when the fate of humanity rests in the hands of these egotistical men who put their own well-being ahead of what’s best for the rest of the world.

Alejandro G. Iñárritu is a very interesting filmmaker.  His filmography has been made up of a wide variety of movies, from films made with gritty realism like Babel (2006) and The Revenant (2015), to movies that are wildly experimental like Birdman (2014) and his last film Bardo (2022).  One thing about Iñárritu that remains consistent is the fact that he never makes the same kind of film twice; he’s always looking to try something different with his next film.  With Digger, he’s definitely wading into his more surreal mode, telling this cautionary tale about egotism and climate change within a very heightened world.  From the performances to the production design, this is a movie that very much is not meant to be reflective of the real world.  And that is largely the point of the film.  When watching the movie, Iñárritu makes a point of the artifice of it all, and it actually become a plot point in the film itself.  But, in making this a very experimental movie that draws attention to it’s own artifice, Iñárritu certainly runs the risk of alienating some of his audience.  Digger is undoubtedly going to be a polarizing movie, with people either loving it for it’s originality, or hating it for it being aggressively unconventional.  Where I myself fall on the spectrum of critical opinion of this movie is unfortunately on the negative side, but with some nuance to my reaction to this movie.  I ultimately did not enjoy the overall experience of watching this movie, as I felt a lot of the eccentricities became a little too much and got in the way of the cinematic experience.  At the same time, there is still a lot to admire about the movie, and at times the movie comes very close to achieving brilliance.  My opinion of this movie may even change over time, swaying one way or the other, but upon first watch, I found myself coming away feeling like the movie fell well short of how I wanted it to be.  What I think may be at the core of what makes or breaks the movie for most people is when a big twist is revealed about 40 minutes into the film.  It’s here where we learn exactly why this story is being told in such a heightened way, with all of it’s oddball exaggeration.  For me, I admire the idea behind the plot twist but I feel that it also acts as a cop out for the filmmaker.  Strangely enough, I feel like I could have done without the explanation and just have the movie stick to the act that it had initially set up.

What the twist ends up doing that I feel damages the movie experience as a whole is that it segments the movie in a way that I feel breaks the rhythm that the movie is going for.  I was hoping that the movie would commit to the farce completely, but the film for some reason seems to hedge it’s bets unnecessarily.  The film clearly wants to say something bold about climate change, and do so in a way that evokes how Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964) tackled the fears of nuclear war.  But in drawing attention to the artifice, I feel like the movie undermines the message and loses it’s way.  It’s unfortunate, because there are points when this movie really comes close to achieving brilliance.  There’s a scene when the character Digger gives a speech to the European Union that may be one of the best scenes that I have seen all year.  It’s an incredible 10 minute long monologue delivered by Cruise as the character, and most of it is done in a one-shot, with the actor throwing himself physically and fully into the performance.  I wish so much that more of the movie had risen to the level of this scene.  This would normally have been the moment for an Oscar’s highlight reel, but it will likely be buried underneath all of the discussion over why this movie did not land with most people.  I should note that there is nothing embarrassingly bad about this movie.  This isn’t as cringe-inducing of a big swing that misses such as something like Babylon (2022) or Joker: Folie a Deux (2024).  When Iñárritu misses in this movie, it’s still an impressive attempt.  The movie is wholly well crafted and is taking bold risks.  But the sum of the parts just doesn’t come together the way it should, and that ultimately leads to it falling short for someone like me.  I can go along with some weird choices in movies, but in the end I have to enjoy the experience of watching the movie and not feel like I only get that experience periodically.  Digger is a testing experience and I feel like a large part of the audience is likely going to reject it in the end, mainly because it is an unforgiving movie if you aren’t on board with it’s conceit.

One of the things that I can unequivocally say is a positive about the movie are the performances from the cast.  Everyone in the movie very much is on board with the absurdity on display; especially Tom Cruise himself.  It’s been way too long since we’ve seen Tom Cruise actually attempt to play a character so wildly different from his own public persona.  He’s had this talent all along, but has never really allowed himself to display these kinds of acting chops.  We got a little taste of it in Ben Stiller’s satirical Hollywood comedy Tropic Thunder (2008), where Tom Cruise appeared as a grotesque parody of a studio executive named Les Grossman.  Buried under a fat suit and facial prosthetics, Cruise was allowed to fully disappear into this character and actually show off his acting range, even if it was in a screwball comedy.  That version has been lying dormant for nearly 20 years, and finally with Digger we finally get to see this side of Tom Cruise come out again.  While it may not be the best performance of his career, Tom Cruise is still easily the highlight of this movie.  He’s fully committed to the role, making Digger Rockwell this larger than life figure, full of swagger and braggadocio.  And what is especially great about the performance is that Cruise manages to disappear in the role.  You stop seeing the movie star and begin to see the character, and it’s great to see Tom Cruise finally pull off something like that again in a movie.  That one-shot I mentioned earlier is definitely the point where you see Cruise in his element, taking full command of the screen with the power of his delivery and the way he physically throws himself into the moment as well.  In addition, the movie also has plenty of memorable performances from a solid supporting cast.  Chief among those are Riz Ahmed as Dr. Ganesh and John Goodman as the President.  Goodman himself is going just as big and over-the-top as Cruise is in the movie, a mode that we’ve seen him do before brilliantly in a handful of Coen Brothers movies.  Riz Ahmed acts as more of the straight man here, and certainly acts as the moral backbone of the story, being the only voice of reason amid all the insanity.  Ahmed plays that mode perfectly, while still feeling like his character belongs in this absurdist take on the world.  The only actor I feel gets short-changed in the cast is Sandra Huller, whose character unfortunately gets treated like an afterthought through the course of the movie.  Coming off her success in Oscar winning movies like Anatomy of a Fall (2023) and The Zone of Interest (2023), as well as this year’s box office hit Project Hail Mary (2026), I wish she was given more to do in this movie.

One other thing that I believe many people will celebrate about this movie is the way it looks.  The film was shot by three time Oscar winner Emmanuel Lubezki, who of course won two of his Oscars for Iñárritu movies; Birdman and The Revenant.  The duo team up again here and Lubezki does not disappoint.  He casts the film with this very muted color palette, which fits within the theme of the movie, which is all about the world decaying under climate catastrophes.  One other thing that’s noteworthy about this film is that it’s another recent movie shot on Vistavision, marking another example of the format’s incredible return to prominence in the filmmaking process.  While the movie isn’t showing off the format with big sweeping shots like we saw with The Brutalist (2024) or One Battle After Another (2025), it nevertheless does a great job of creating this wide angle effect on all of the interior scenes in the movie, which also again draw attention to the artificiality behind the story being told.  It’s Lubezki’s first time working with Vistavision, and hopefully it’s a format his continues to stick with, because it works well with his way of framing his shots.  The production design is also beautifully crafted.  I liken the look of this film to being a more grim version of the Wes Anderson style.  A lot of the film stages itself within these Anderson-like tableaus, and a lot of the fun of watching this movie is in catching all the detail put into the film’s design.  This movie also marks a departure for Iñárritu, who is a filmmaker much more drawn to moving his camera around.  Here he keeps things mostly stationary, with his camera movements limited to simple pans or dolly shots.  There of course is a reason for every scene to have a more locked down movement of the camera, which I don’t want to spoil.  But it is a very clear sign of Iñárritu giving himself more challenges to overcome as a filmmaker, which is a positive for this movie.  One experimental thing that I don’t think works as well in this movie is the musical score.  Written by Cosmo Sheldrake, the music in this movie is aggressively experimental, and oftentimes difficult to listen to.  Perhaps that was the aim of the movie, to create a soundscape that was as off kilter as possible, but I felt that it was a bit too distracting and did not benefit the movie as a whole.  Otherwise, the craft behind this movie is definitely one of it’s saving graces.

The conversation surrounding this movie is likely to be pretty animated.  I tried to keep my opinion on this movie nuanced, because while I didn’t like the experience as a whole, there are still things about it that I do admire.  The highlight for sure is Tom Cruise.  My worry is that the mixed reception for this movie is going to deter Cruise from ever breaking out of his comfort zone ever again, leaving him to retreat back to his action movies.  I really want people to encourage him to take more bold risks as an actor, because we know he can do it and it’s something that he regretfully has been shying away from for too many years.  I hope many other filmmakers see Tom Cruise throwing himself so fully into character here and that it convinces them to take a chance on having him in their experimental movies as well.  It would be nice if Cruise takes a chance and lends his talents to an A24 or Neon film eventually.  Maybe we’ll see him work with the likes of Paul Thomas Anderson again, as the last time they collaborated it resulted in one of Cruise’s greatest performances ever with Magnolia (1999).  As of right now, Digger isn’t going to be the movie that opens up a new wave of dramatic roles for Tom Cruise.  The movie is too much of a mess to stand out as an awards worthy production.  The audience is sure to be very divided on this movie.  I can easily understand all of the hate that will be coming this movie’s way, but I can also understand if someone views this movie as a masterpiece.  Either way, no one’s opinion is going to be wrong about this movie, and that’s what the most experimental kinds of films do.  If you loathe this film and it aggressively turned you off, then that’s a very understandable conclusion.  If you loved every second of the movie’s bold, big swings, that I’m happy for you too.  That in a way is a triumph for this film, in that it’s going to strike up a lot of discussion.  For that alone, I do recommend seeing the movie, just so you can see which side of the spectrum of opinion you fall on.  If the movie fails at anything the most, it’s with coming up with a profound statement about the issue of climate change, which I feel got too buried in the weirdness of the film.  The movie will stand out more for what it attempted to do rather than what it was trying to say.  It was a bold try, and oftentimes it delivers some brilliant moments, but ultimately Digger is let down by it’s own crushing weight of trying to be too many things all at once.  But it is better to have tried than to not have tried at all, and for some that may be a diamond in the rough of this very messy and challenging movie.

Rating: 6.5/10