John Goodman Says Early Digger Reviews Hurt the Film Before Its Release

John Goodman has spoken candidly about the difficult rollout for Digger, arguing that negative early coverage damaged the Tom Cruise-led film before audiences had a real opportunity to decide for themselves. The movie has become one of Hollywood's most visible commercial disappointments of 2026, earning $49 million to date against a reported production budget estimated between $125 million and $180 million.

That gulf makes a break-even theatrical run extremely unlikely. Even before marketing costs and the complicated split of ticket revenue between studios and cinemas are considered, the film has a substantial amount of ground to make up. Home-video and digital revenue may ultimately soften the financial impact, but the current theatrical performance leaves Digger far short of the kind of event-level result often expected from a major Tom Cruise release.

For Goodman, though, the most painful part was not solely the ticket sales. Speaking with Josh Horowitz, the actor said the narrative surrounding the picture had turned against it before its opening weekend. He specifically pointed to pessimistic headlines forecasting a very low debut, saying that response gave viewers another reason to stay away.

"It hurt. They kinda killed us before we opened," Goodman said, referring to coverage suggesting the film would bring in only $5 million.

For useful background on this topic, read Gamescom Asia x Thailand Game Show Draws Nearly 220,000 Visitors in Bangkok.

Goodman's comments reopen a familiar debate in modern moviegoing: how much power do early reviews, social-media reactions, tracking reports, and box-office projections have over a film's commercial fate? A bad opening can make that conversation feel inevitable in hindsight, but the relationship between criticism and ticket sales is rarely straightforward. For a high-cost release built around a global star, however, negative momentum can become especially difficult to overcome.

A difficult result for a major star vehicle

Cruise remains one of the few actors whose name alone can still position a film as a major theatrical attraction. That status makes the outcome for Digger more notable than the underperformance of an ordinary studio title. The film was clearly conceived as a significant release, with the scale of its reported budget placing it in a financial category where even a respectable showing may not be enough.

Instead, its $49 million total so far has put the focus on what did not connect. The movie's Rotten Tomatoes score is currently 53%, a figure that reflects a sharply mixed reception rather than an outright critical collapse. Still, it is among Cruise's more divisive films and represents his lowest-rated movie since 2017's The Mummy.

That distinction matters because the reception did not portray Digger as universally unwatchable. The response has been more complicated: some viewers and critics have found value in its performances, comic moments, and ambitions, while others have felt that its satire does not land with sufficient force. In the crowded attention economy surrounding a big-screen release, nuance can be hard to preserve. A middling aggregate score, unfavorable opening forecasts, and headlines about a troubled launch can all combine into a simpler public impression that a movie is not worth making time for.

Goodman does not appear to accept that conclusion. He said he is proud of the film and emphasized that he enjoyed making it. More importantly, he defended the movie's underlying message, suggesting that its creative intentions still matter even if the finished product did not earn unanimous praise or find a large theatrical audience.

Satire, climate themes, and a divided reaction

Digger uses satire to engage with global warming, a subject that can be difficult for any mainstream film to tackle without becoming overly blunt, overly bleak, or too eager to lecture its audience. That balancing act seems central to the mixed response. The movie has been credited with strong work from its cast and with delivering more than a few effective laughs, but critics have also argued that it lacks the sharper edge needed to fully sell its larger point.

That is a meaningful difference for satire. A drama can succeed through emotional sincerity even when its themes are familiar. A satire, by contrast, often depends on precision. Its humor, targets, tone, and message need to work in concert. If any of those pieces feel too broad or too softened, the result can be entertaining in stretches while still falling short of the impact it is aiming for.

For Goodman, the fact that the film had a message worth defending appears to be a major reason he remains committed to it. His response is not framed as a claim that every critic was wrong or that audiences were obligated to embrace the movie. Rather, it is an expression of disappointment that the discussion surrounding Digger may have become dominated by predictions of failure before the public could encounter its ideas on the big screen.

That distinction also speaks to the difference between a film's artistic legacy and its opening-weekend reputation. Financial expectations increasingly shape the language around major releases almost immediately. A movie can be described as a success, a disappointment, or a bomb while many potential viewers are still deciding whether to buy a ticket. Those labels have real consequences, particularly when they become the dominant framing across entertainment coverage and online conversation.

Can Digger be reassessed later?

It is possible that Digger will find a more appreciative audience over time. That does not necessarily mean its current criticisms will disappear. Reappraisal is not always about proving that initial reviews were wrong; it can be about a movie reaching viewers under different conditions. Away from opening-weekend pressure, marketing expectations, and constant comparisons to a budget, people can approach a film with fewer assumptions about what it was supposed to be.

Some films that disappoint theatrically later develop devoted audiences through streaming, physical media, television airings, or word of mouth. Others remain divisive but gain respect for taking risks that bigger hits avoided. Whether Digger follows either path is impossible to know at this stage. Meaningful reevaluation can take years, and not every commercial failure becomes a cult favorite.

There is also a broader question hanging over Cruise's future choices. His career has included major crowd-pleasers, franchise spectacles, and projects driven by a clear preference for theatrical scale. Digger suggests that even a performer with extraordinary name recognition cannot guarantee that an ambitious, expensive swing will connect. It remains to be seen whether the film's performance changes the kinds of projects he pursues or whether it simply becomes an unusual detour in a career defined by taking big chances.

For the people who made the film, Goodman's remarks make one thing clear: they have not disowned it. He continues to stand by the experience, the work, and the movie's intent. That may not change the box-office math, but it offers a more human perspective on a release that has been reduced in many discussions to percentages, projections, and revenue totals.

Digger may ultimately be remembered as a costly missed opportunity, a flawed satire with worthwhile elements, or a film that audiences revisit more generously in the years ahead. For now, it remains a divisive release whose cast believes the public conversation turned harsh before the film had fully been given its chance.