This review almost exactly mirrors my thoughts on Digger. I knew that I would like this movie, as Iñárritu is almost exactly on my wavelength (or I'm on his? Until recently I lived in Mexico, and saw Bardo there which mirrored the experience of my family's multi-national existence in a way that really resonated with me on a personal level), and it frankly exceeded my expectations. I've learned that my tastes aren't exactly mainstream so I guess I'm not surprised by the polarized views of this movie, but it's still hard to get over the sense, reading some reactions, that some people just don't get it? (I know that I should be more generous toward other people's opinions. Sometimes I just ask myself "how could you not love and appreciate the art that I love?")

I loved this: I've seen it twice.  The second time I was alone in the cinema.  I am fairly sure that in twenty years, the few critics who survived the water wars of the late 30s will, strangely, always have loved it.

I don't know if this is what's going on with Digger, but the polarized reaction to it reminds me of the Napoleon Dynamite problem.

When Bertoni runs his algorithms on regular hits like “Lethal Weapon” or “Miss Congeniality” and tries to predict how any given Netflix user will rate them, he’s usually within eight-tenths of a star. But with films like “Napoleon Dynamite,” he’s off by an average of 1.2 stars.

The reason, Bertoni says, is that “Napoleon Dynamite” is very weird and very polarizing. It contains a lot of arch, ironic humor, including a famously kooky dance performed by the titular teenage character to help his hapless friend win a student-council election. It’s the type of quirky entertainment that tends to be either loved or despised. The movie has been rated more than two million times in the Netflix database, and the ratings are disproportionately one or five stars.

Movie critic Dave Chensky:

For the first 30-40 mins of DIGGER, I thought I was watching one of the worst films of the year.

Then the dynamic of the film shifts in ways I can't talk about (yet). There are still parts of the film that are excruciating. But there are also parts that are wildly ambitious and visually spectacular. And I found the ending to be intensely moving and thought-provoking.

Tom Cruise is great but Riz Ahmed steals the show.

(The way they are marketing this is wild. People are not prepared)

I've been sitting on this response for a long time, but given the movie's performance, I think it could be a valid one for many. I'm still trying to get past...Tom Cruise? "Acting"? Nah. I hear he's still great at his stunt work and people pay for that. And I saw him in his last attempt at acting cred ("Eyes Wide Shut") and IMHO he only worked there because Kubrick took his naïveté (everyone loves me, I'm Tom Cruise!) and played it beautifully against great actors. I suspect this is hobbling this movie's returns -- anyone who likes film is like, Tom Cruise? Anyone who likes Tom Cruise is like, no fighter jets? So few are going to the theatre for this.

I don't doubt Iñárritu has something interesting to say, and if I went to see the movie, that'd be why. But I do doubt Cruise is the right lead for it -- granted, without having seen the movie. I've been following the reviews, positive and negative, but frankly it would take A LOT to get me into a theatre for Tom Cruise.

I find it kind of surprising how the Internet seems to generally recognize that Scientology is pretty evil, and Tom Cruise almost certainly sends them a fair bit of money, but folks are still willing to fund him by seeing his movies. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me whether this movie is any good because I'll never watch it.