Tom Cruise has been at the top of the movie industry for over 40 years, starting with "Risky Business" (1983) and "Top Gun" (1986), followed by the Mission: Impossible franchise that started in 1996 and now includes eight movies, making Tom Cruise by far the greatest movie stuntman of all time.
Cruise has been nominated for three Oscars, including "Born on the Fourth of July" (1988), "Jerry Maguire" (1996), and "Magnolia" (1999). For reasons unknown, Tom Cruise was not even nominated for his outstanding performance as a Navy Lawyer in "A Few Good Men" (1992). In my opinion, Cruise deserved at least 2 Oscars for these performances, but now, at age 64, he has never won an Oscar.
The buzz about the new movie "Digger" was that it would, once and for all, showcase Cruise's acting ability and finally win him that elusive Oscar. The truth about the movie Digger is that it does show three outstanding acting performances by John Goodman, Riz Ahmed, and Tom Cruise, but the movie itself is such a nightmare of insane ideas, creepy scenes, and a completely illogical story that it is likely that none of these actors will be nominated for anything. It is close to impossible to win an Academy Award for a movie that has been panned by critics — Rotten Tomatoes is a very low 51%.
Digger was written by three screenwriters; another reason for the disconnected, insane story is that it might suggest that none of these writers actually collaborated while writing this disaster of a movie. It is hard to understand, given that the goal was to give Tom Cruise a great chance of winning an Oscar, that this screenplay was chosen, considering how crazy and insane the whole idea behind this story is.
Tom Cruise is Rockwell, the CEO of an oil company with rigs working in Greenland. Unfortunately, there are leaks that have been known about for some time and ignored, which cause a huge iceberg to break off and head towards Europe. At this point in the story, everything was normal and looked to be a good message story about Global Warming; then, about 25% in, the film took a giant leap into a crazy direction that seemed entirely about being different and had nothing to do with creating an interesting, coherent movie. The critics are as harsh as I have ever seen: Odie Henderson — The Boston Globe — ZERO STARS: “this egocentric piece of s***.” It is worth noting that Henderson isn't merely saying the movie is bad—he put it in the extremely rare zero-star category.
Considering some scenes of great acting with Cruise, Goodman, and Ahmed, the mistake of turning this good story into a crazy, off-the-wall idea is somewhat tragic, when you remember that the entire point was to give Tom Cruise his shot at winning an Academy Award, and three great acting performances will go largely ignored. The people in charge of this movie all got the acting parts right, but forgot to write a real movie with a message that made sense.
I agree with the 51% rating for Digger on Rotten Tomatoes and do not recommend this movie, mainly because the "let's be different" ideas are stupid, and it is so hard to sit through. As for the acting, some scenes might be a good idea for an acting class somewhere in Hollywood; for the rest of us, run away fast from this two-hour, insane, and incoherent mess.
Movie Reviews From a Screenwriter's Perspective
Sunday, October 4, 2026
Friday, October 2, 2026
Movie Review: Verity
Sometimes it is amazing to see a big miss of a movie like this, with arguably the two hottest female actors in the movie industry, Ann Hathaway and Dakota Johnson. Ann Hathaway has appeared in five movies this year (Mother Mary, The Devil Wears Prada 2, The Odyssey, The End of Oak Street, Verity), which has to be one of the all-time record number of movie appearances in one year for any actress in Hollywood history. Unfortunately, the new movie "Verity" is an amazingly big-time boring dud of a film, with idiotic twists and turns and an ending that fell completely flat. While sitting through these two hours, it was impossible to understand why this story could be a big Coleen Hoover bestseller, and the screenplay was then greenlit.
The logline for this movie: A struggling writer is hired to finish the work of a bestselling novelist who has been left unable to speak or move after an accident, but while living in the novelist's isolated home, she discovers a disturbing manuscript that may reveal horrific secrets about the family—and she begins to question what is true and what is fiction. The problem after this good-sounding logline is that the rest of the story is nothing more than attempts to try and fail to trick the audience, with a convoluted, boring story and then a final twist that comes out of nowhere and makes no sense. This movie is one of the many that just kind of end with no satisfying conclusion, which is something that I have always hated as an idea for all movies.
Two of the better critical reviews: Slant Magazine: Described it as essentially all setup and no payoff, saying it repeatedly promises shocking developments but fails to deliver the thrills or passion. Screen Daily: Called it a "flimsy pastiche" of old erotic thrillers, arguing that its outrageousness eventually overwhelms its logic.
The Rotten Tomatoes consensus is a correct and very low 39%. I agree with this rating and recommend eating a pretzel if you're looking for stupid twists and turns that make no sense.
The logline for this movie: A struggling writer is hired to finish the work of a bestselling novelist who has been left unable to speak or move after an accident, but while living in the novelist's isolated home, she discovers a disturbing manuscript that may reveal horrific secrets about the family—and she begins to question what is true and what is fiction. The problem after this good-sounding logline is that the rest of the story is nothing more than attempts to try and fail to trick the audience, with a convoluted, boring story and then a final twist that comes out of nowhere and makes no sense. This movie is one of the many that just kind of end with no satisfying conclusion, which is something that I have always hated as an idea for all movies.
Two of the better critical reviews: Slant Magazine: Described it as essentially all setup and no payoff, saying it repeatedly promises shocking developments but fails to deliver the thrills or passion. Screen Daily: Called it a "flimsy pastiche" of old erotic thrillers, arguing that its outrageousness eventually overwhelms its logic.
The Rotten Tomatoes consensus is a correct and very low 39%. I agree with this rating and recommend eating a pretzel if you're looking for stupid twists and turns that make no sense.
Saturday, September 26, 2026
Movie Review: Primetime
The new movie "Primetime" is about the television series that ran from 2004 to 2007, "To Catch a Predator". The year 2004 marked the final season of "Friends", and Seinfeld went off the air in 1998, setting the stage for an investigation show that tried to trap sexual predators of young girls and boys on national television. Amazingly, this show achieved #1 in ratings several times during its three-year run.
The lead reporter for this show was Chris Hansen, who would show up inside a house where the predator was waiting for some young person to arrive; then Hansen would question and humiliate the suspect, and then they would be arrested. The show followed this exact same series of events in every episode, which is probably why it only lasted three years.
For reasons unknown, a decision was made to make this television show from 20 years ago into a movie called Primetime, starring Robert Pattinson as Chris Hansen. This movie looks like it was shot using low-grade film, as if it were a cheap documentary. I have no idea why a decision was made to turn a bad television show from 20+ years ago into a bad documentary-like movie. The high rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 87% makes even less sense.
Like the television show from 20 years ago, this movie is a series of the same scenes repeated several times over. It was slow and boring and predictable, and as a movie, it never should have been greenlit. I rate this film a big pass, mainly because it never should have been made in the first place.
The lead reporter for this show was Chris Hansen, who would show up inside a house where the predator was waiting for some young person to arrive; then Hansen would question and humiliate the suspect, and then they would be arrested. The show followed this exact same series of events in every episode, which is probably why it only lasted three years.
For reasons unknown, a decision was made to make this television show from 20 years ago into a movie called Primetime, starring Robert Pattinson as Chris Hansen. This movie looks like it was shot using low-grade film, as if it were a cheap documentary. I have no idea why a decision was made to turn a bad television show from 20+ years ago into a bad documentary-like movie. The high rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 87% makes even less sense.
Like the television show from 20 years ago, this movie is a series of the same scenes repeated several times over. It was slow and boring and predictable, and as a movie, it never should have been greenlit. I rate this film a big pass, mainly because it never should have been made in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)