Tom Cruise co-star John Goodman says critics sank Digger before it ever had a fair chance, and he is not backing down from that claim.

Goodman spoke with Josh Horowitz about the film’s struggles and argued that the early wave of negative coverage pushed audiences away. The film has only made $49 million so far against a reported budget of between $125 and $180 million. That gap means it is not expected to break even in its theatrical run, and it probably will not recover the difference on home video either.

“It hurt. They kinda killed us before we opened [with headlines like], ‘This will only make $5,’ and it [felt like] a good reason for people to avoid it. I’m proud of it. I had a ball doing it.”

That quote captures the core of the grievance. Goodman is not only describing a disappointing opening. He is saying the conversation around the movie became a reason not to see it, and that the headlines did the damage before a single ticket was sold.

A bomb in a town that still believes in Cruise

Digger is one of the biggest Hollywood disappointments of 2026, and the stakes are unusually high because of who is attached to it. Cruise is widely seen as one of the last true movie stars, the kind of name that has long been used to justify big theatrical bets. When a Cruise film stumbles at this scale, the damage goes beyond one set of box office numbers. It raises questions about whether audiences still show up for star-driven originals.

The reviews have been divided. Digger holds a 53% score on Rotten Tomatoes, which makes it one of Cruise’s most divisive films. It is also the lowest-rated movie in his filmography since 2017’s The Mummy. For a performer whose name has nearly always guaranteed a certain level of attention, that kind of split reception has landed hard.

What the critics actually said

Goodman’s frustration is aimed at the headlines, but the reviews themselves were more mixed than a simple pan. One review gave Digger a 6 out of 10. It argued that the satire lacks the bite needed to sell its message. That same review said the film has excellent performances and more than a few laughs.

The review’s central line is the one that cuts both ways. Its satire may not change your thinking on global warming, but the performances and humor still earn it a look. The verdict also came with a practical recommendation: if you are an AMC A-List member or have another cinema subscription, the film is worth catching on the big screen. In other words, the critical consensus was not that the film was worthless. It was that the film was uneven.

That nuance is exactly what Goodman believes got lost. A movie that is divisive can still find an audience, but a movie that is framed as a flop before release has a much harder time convincing people to take a chance on it. The gap between a 6 out of 10 and a box office punchline is where his argument lives.

Goodman stands by the message

Goodman did not only defend the film’s reputation. He said he believed in the message of Digger and stood by the work, even though it was not universally loved. That matters because it reframes the story. The actor is not dismissing criticism wholesale. He is saying the film deserved to be judged on what it tried to do, not on a pile of predictions about how badly it would perform.

He also said he had a great time making it. Few actors will say that about a project that is now being described as one of the year’s biggest misfires, and that personal investment is part of why his comments are landing with fans.

The money problem

The financial side of the story is grim. A reported budget between $125 million and $180 million is enormous, and the $49 million the film has made so far is nowhere near enough to cover it. The source material is clear that the film will not come close to breaking even in theaters. It also suggests the home video market is unlikely to close that gap.

Those numbers make the timing of the criticism even more painful for the people who made the movie. By the time a film’s total earnings are being measured against its cost, the conversation has moved beyond the work itself and into the balance sheet. Goodman’s argument is that the first wave of headlines helped set that outcome in motion.

Will Digger be reconsidered?

Goodman’s view leaves an open question about the future. Digger may age well, and some fans may eventually decide the film was misjudged. The source reporting, however, cautions that it may be years before the movie gets any kind of meaningful reevaluation. That is a long wait for a project whose reputation is already being set in the present.

There is also the question of what comes next for Cruise. Whether this result will push him away from more big swings remains to be seen. For now, the team behind the film is standing by it, which is the clearest signal available that the people closest to Digger do not see it as a failed experiment.

The bigger lesson may be about how films are discussed before audiences ever see them. Goodman’s complaint is that negative predictions can become self-fulfilling. If a movie is treated as doomed, people may stay home, and that silence then becomes the proof critics needed. Whether or not one agrees with his assessment of the reviews, his point about the power of early headlines is hard to dismiss.