The only consolation for “Digger” right now, when it comes to the Oscar race, is that it is somehow not the lowest-reviewed film still considered to have a shot at major nominations. That position still belongs to “Michael,” to the point that if something with a 39 Metacritic score and a 4.9 Rotten Tomatoes average rating hasn’t been counted out, something like “Digger,” with a 46 Metacritic score and a 6.0 Rotten Tomatoes average, can’t be completely dead either.
Of course, if either one actually got into Best Picture, it would tie or supplant “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” as the worst-reviewed Best Picture nominee of the expanded era, if not the worst-reviewed nominee in the Academy’s 99-year history. As such, any comparisons to that infamous film will help judge if “Michael” or “Digger” can do what it did 15 years ago.
“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” – 45%/5.6 average on Rotten Tomatoes, 46 on Metacritic
“Digger” – 51%/6.0 average on Rotten Tomatoes, 46 on Metacritic
“Michael” – 38%/4.9 average on Rotten Tomatoes, 39 on Metacritic
By those numbers, “Digger” is well above “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” on Rotten Tomatoes, yet on par or slightly worse on Metacritic. Beforehand, its tone and subject matter drew frequent comparisons to “Don’t Look Up,” yet “Digger” actually trails that movie’s 56%/6.3 average on Rotten Tomatoes and 49 on Metacritic. So if “Digger” did get in, it would be the next “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” if not a bit worse.
Yet “Michael” has all these films left in the dust when it comes to poor critic scores, which would make it the kind of Best Picture nominee never before seen in history. Not even mixed or poorly reviewed biopics like “Bohemian Rhapsody” or “Elvis” had to overcome these kinds of numbers – but then again, not even those movies had “Michael’s” numbers at the box office either.
Any comparisons between “Michael” and “Digger” don’t begin and end with critics’ scores, but with box office, now that “Digger” might not even get close to $25 million in America alone while “Michael” has well over a billion worldwide. Those numbers are pretty much the only reason “Michael” is being talked about, or outright feared, as a potential nominee anyway – especially as films like “Digger” and others from the film festival circuit keep falling off the bubble and clearing a potential path.
Until “Michael” actually fails to get nominated or outright bailed out by a major industry voting body like the Golden Globes, SAG, or PGA, it will be feared as a potential Oscar nominee that shocks and stuns the circuit in the same way “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” did at the very end of Oscar nomination morning. Likewise, even with the massively negative box office and review headlines of “Digger,” all it would take is any industry voter recognition for Tom Cruise, and a reminder of their love for Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, to make anyone leery of a potential shocker.
But if one or both movies can do what “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” did, what else do they actually need to do? Considering how little “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” had to do, in Oscar nominations and elsewhere, “Michael” and “Digger” might already have better options than it did.
Aside from Best Picture, the one and only nomination “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” received was a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Max von Sydow. While Oscar-winning headliners like Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks were snubbed, along with Oscar-nominated director Stephen Daldry, von Sydow was a beloved veteran whose first nomination in 33 years was just the foot in the door the rest of the movie needed. Compared to that, the remaining potential of Cruise getting his first nomination in 27 years is a walk in the park way to keep “Digger” alive, especially since most of the negative reviews still gave him some level of praise.
“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” is comparable to “Digger” in other ways, particularly when it comes to its director. While Daldry didn’t win two Oscars like Iñárritu did, by 2011 his movies were almost as much a staple for Academy voters as Iñárritu’s, between “Billy Elliot,” “The Hours,” and “The Reader.” Even with the far lower reviews for “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” Academy voters still couldn’t bear to cut the cord on him, though this was the last time they recognized one of his movies. In that regard, “Digger” could also benefit from being at the tail end of a run where voters feel obligated to check off anything Iñárritu does.
What’s more, “Digger” has bonus possibilities for extra nominations besides Cruise, at least until major voting bodies and the guilds prove otherwise. Although nominations for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and any other actor besides Cruise seem unlikely now, Best Makeup and Hairstyling and Best Production Design may still be within reach. If it gets those and gets Cruise in by sheer force of will – or a desire to headline him at Oscar night by hook or by crook – that is at least a better nomination package than “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” needed.
However, if a movie is going to overcome the odds and the reviews to this extent, “Michael” can argue that it has the same potential nomination package to do it, if not a better one.
Like “Digger,” “Michael” still has the potential to slip someone into Best Actor, in its case, Jaafar Jackson. Unlike “Digger,” “Michael” might also still have a better shot to slip someone into Best Supporting Actor as well, in its case, recent two-time nominee Colman Domingo. And like “Digger,” “Michael” has a few below-the-line categories it can sneak in to strengthen its resume, like Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design and Best Sound. But even if those fall short, it might take a snub from the PGA – with the exact kind of voters who would be most impressed by its billions of dollars – before anyone can sound the all-clear on the Academy turning “Michael” down for good.
Both “Michael” and “Digger” have the potential to have better nomination mornings than “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” ever did before it shocked its way into Best Picture. Both “Michael” and “Digger” have the industry-friendly ties and more than “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” did – whether it is massive box office, ties to the most famous entertainers of the last 40+ years, or in “Digger’s” case, backing from the now most powerful studio owner in Hollywood. And whether it is countless Michael Jackson fans, or the half of critics and viewers who loudly argue that “Digger” is brilliant and daring like perhaps no big studio movie may be again in the new “Skydance” era, lots of supporters for both movies will try to drown out their vast critics all season long.
What “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” really benefited from was a weak Best Picture field and bubble, as the 2011 lineup is perhaps the lowest reviewed and one of the lowest regarded in the entire expanded era – hence the extra ease in getting the worst reviewed nominee of the era in. The potential 2026 lineup doesn’t seem to be trending towards those low scores yet, but it is starting to become clear that it will not be among the highest-rated lineups of the era either, at least not on par with 2025 or maybe even 2024.
In a bubble where other less than unanimously praised films like “I Play Rocky,” “Elsinore,” “Being Heumann,” and “Fjord” are being given an equal or better chance to get in than the likes of the much higher-rated “All of a Sudden,” “Possible Love,” “Club Kid,” and “You Can See Everything,” can a voting trend towards the mixed-reviewed but most traditionally appealing bubble films bring the likes of “Michael” or “Digger” in too? Maybe that would be too extreme, especially if more relatively well-reviewed, traditional Oscar-bait films like “I Play Rocky” and “Elsinore” can get in position to take the final spots instead. But since neither one will make a billion dollars, and neither one has figures like Jackson and Cruise at the center, does that make any other advantages moot?
In any logical race or year, “Michael” and “Digger” would have been easily counted out as even close to Best Picture nominations long ago, like all but a few movies with their scores in the last 17 years were. Nonetheless, the still lingering memory of “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” and the examples of nominees with only marginally better reviews like “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Don’t Look Up,” continue to give hope that if movies like “Michael” and “Digger” have other industry-friendly strengths, they may be all too hard to finish off truly.
As the bubble thins and more time goes by, will it really be safe to declare “Michael” and “Digger” completely dead at any point before Oscar nomination morning? Is this the kind of year where reviews and the most damning backlash become so irrelevant, and the Academy becomes so desperate to get the fanbases of Jackson and Cruise to tune in on March 14th, that it will ignore anything – even the most scalding reviews and most troubling implications in nominating these movies – to make it happen? For the next few months, the example of “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” will be held up to prove, or warn, that it can still be done.
Do you think “Digger” and/or “Michael” have a chance to receive a Best Picture nomination? What films do you think will be in the ten when nominations are announced? Please let us know in the comments section below and on Next Best Picture’s X account, and check out Next Best Picture’s latest Oscar predictions here.
