When I went to see the slog that is Christopher Nolan's adaptation of "The Odyssey," I tried to put aside the criticisms I'd seen online and heard in my favorite podcasts, including concerns about the casting of Elliott (Ellen) Page — all 5' 1" of her — as a brave warrior, Lupita Nyong'o as Helen of Troy, and Zendaya (who has mastered the art of the resting b***h face) as the goddess Athena. What I found was that the much-feared woke elements and casting were a secondary problem. The film was objectively horrible; it was terribly paced, poorly written, underwhelmingly filmed for a guy who gave us the tense and epic nuclear bomb test in "Oppenheimer" just a couple of years ago.
Yes, the movie made money, and its box office far exceeded my expectations. But that doesn't change the fact it's a terrible film. Even Emily Wilson, whose translation Nolan based the film on, slammed it.
Those criticisms are what I based my review on. Would that others did the same. Instead, the cadre of film critics have decided that being honest about the craft of filmmaking takes a back seat to enforcing their preferred political agendas and narratives.
This comes about with "Digger," the satirical dark comedy directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu set to hit theaters tomorrow. Starring Tom Cruise and John Goodman, I've heard it hailed as an environmentalist version of "Apocalypse Now." Setting aside the fact that no film should attempt to equate itself to that cinematic masterpiece, we go back to the same old song and dance: moviegoers want to be entertained, not lectured.
Critics don't care.
The Guardian admits that for political movies all critics agree they should suspend criticism. pic.twitter.com/yE1XT7619A
— Disparu (@disparutoo) September 30, 2026
Here's what The Guardian had to say:
As with Adam McKay's 'Don't Look Up,' there may be a tacit consensus, understandable at some level, that at least we have a big mainstream movie which is talking about the biggest issue of our time, and we have a duty to suspend critical objection.
In other words, critics are saying, "Yes, this movie sucks, but we want people to be indoctrinated, so we'll pretend it's the best thing ever."
How can they call themselves professionals when their one job — to review and evaluate a film on its artistic merits — is cast aside to push their political agenda?
They can't, and they should all be fired and replaced with critics who will.
Now, I haven't seen the film yet. I am a member of the local theater chain's club, so I get one free movie a month. I'm trying to decide if I want to waste it on "Digger" or a movie I'd likely enjoy. It's a pity, really; I like Tom Cruise and wanted to see him do some acting instead of action films like "Mission: Impossible." Enjoyable as those are, Cruise has more to offer than hanging off the side of a plane.
That said, "Digger" is sitting at 53 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and 44 percent on Metacritic, so maybe every critic didn't get The Guardian's memo. Beloved as Tom Cruise is, I don't see him drawing audiences to the box office for this. I also doubt Alejandro G. Iñárritu, unlike Nolan, has the devoted fan base to turn a major profit on this movie, regardless of its quality. Politicized reviews aren't going to fix this, either.
But they will ensure that people ignore what the critics have to say, and they're going to end up politicizing themselves out of their jobs. And it's clear that nothing of value will be lost when that happens.
