If I had to describe “Supergirl” in one word, it would be “disposable.” Usually, when a movie is called disposable, it’s for films with no rewatchability, or ones that evaporate from your memory the second the credits roll. Unfortunately for this film specifically, both apply here. “Supergirl” thinks it’s funnier than it is, and it fundamentally stumbles on a technical, visual and narrative level. With that being said, I actually enjoyed watching “Supergirl.”
Public sentiment and early reviews are already writing “Supergirl” off as a bad movie, and to an extent, they have a point. But just because a film fails at a technical and fundamental level doesn’t necessarily mean it fails to be entertaining and a good source of escapism. “Supergirl” isn’t as competent as top-tier superhero films; its supporting cast feels like a knock-off “Guardians Of The Galaxy,” and the color palette looks like the Dust Bowl. But that doesn’t mean “Supergirl” is completely without merit.
“Supergirl’s” lack of fundamental filmmaking skills adds an endearing value that complements Milly Alcock’s incongruous performance. Consequently, the film itself, while messy, finds an off-beat, altruistic and sometimes nihilistic place in the superhero film zeitgeist. Whether or not that works for a superhero movie and earns the merit of the “Supergirl” name will ultimately come down to the individual. Personally, while I’m not optimistic about the future of “Supergirl” after a mixed box office reception, the movie itself was worth the initial viewing.
There’s been a lot of controversy surrounding Alcock’s central performance as the titular “Supergirl.” I went in not liking what I saw of her in the pre-release material and had low expectations going into it. Surprisingly, she elevates the subpar script with an unexpectedly crass performance. The attitude she brought to the role leads to an imperfectness to the fights and dialog, complementing the messiness of the dialog by acknowledging the underlying themes of the movie.
Take an early fight scene outside a bar on a red sun planet; Alcock’s performance brilliantly highlights the scrappiness of Kara’s (Supergirl’s) fighting style, creating an immense contrast when compared to David Corenswet’s clean, overly comic-bookie Superman. Coming into this as a fan of the CW “Supergirl,” “Smallville” and “Justice League Unlimited,” my biggest question was whether we needed another “Supergirl.” Alcock’s take on the character is different and personalized enough to justify it.
Even with Alcock’s performance, however, the film itself is never good enough to justify the existence of a new “Supergirl.” So what’s the point of watching “Supergirl?” Well, on one hand, “Supergirl” is a great form of escapism. It’s entertaining enough, and it’s disposable enough that in the 108 minutes I spent watching it, I was immersed; I cared. Maybe not about everything happening in the film, but I sympathized with “Supergirl” herself. When “Supergirl” is the best part of your “Supergirl” movie, I think that in itself is a reason to watch.
“Supergirl” revolves around Kara, a Kryptonian from the planet Krypton who was sent to Earth once her planet died. It roughly follows the comic book “Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow,” but it’s also a very loose interpretation of that. If you walk into this movie thinking it’s going to be an adaptation of “Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow,” you’re going to be disappointed. “Supergirl” is more an interpretation of the graphic novel than an adaptation.
Furthermore, the iconic visuals of the comic are missing, replaced by a color palette composed of brown and grey. It’s a disappointingly ugly film considering the vibrant visuals of the source material. Supergirl’s visuals look like a knockoff of “Guardians of the Galaxy.” It’s standard multi-million dollar blockbuster visual garbage.
Speaking of garbage, the cinematography. “Supergirl” has boring and uninspired cinematography. There was never a moment in this movie where the cinematography felt innovative or unique. It felt like watching standard superhero content.
The supporting cast feels like knockoffs of “Guardians of the Galaxy” characters. Ruthye is a dime-store Mantis, and Lobo is Drax. They’re watchable in isolation but never act like the characters that they’re supposed to be. For example, Jason Momoa’s Lobo never embodies the spontaneity or the nihilism to make Lobo into a compelling character. Conversely, Ruthye’s only personality trait is being annoying. It’s not Eve Ridley’s fault; it’s the material she’s given that makes her so unlikable.
Krem was a surprising standout. While not a well-developed character, I was shocked by how violent and menacing he was during the film. Furthermore, Matthias Schoenaerts’ portrayal of Krem isn’t in line with his comic book counterpart. He brings a playfulness and spontaneity to the role that works in the context of the film. Krem is enjoyable to watch and easy to forget.
In a broader sense, “Supergirl” paints a worrying picture for the future of the DC cinematic universe (DCU). None of the released DC projects since James Gunn became the head of DC have distinguished themselves enough to be considered a cinematic universe. For reference, the second film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) was “The Incredible Hulk.” While opinions on the film are mixed, it proved the range Marvel Studios had. “The Incredible Hulk” and “Iron Man” are stylistically and thematically very different movies. So far, the same versatility is yet to be seen from DCU.
There were no moments in “Supergirl” that I haven’t seen in anything else either produced or created by Gunn, but you could say the same about “Superman.” Because of this, when Kara and Superman interact, it never feels special. The shock of a crossover doesn’t only come from the names of the heroes but the ability to merge different characters and styles of filmmaking into a collaboration. Gunn’s formula isn’t necessarily bad, but when his headliner characters come together, it feels more like an everyday affair than a cameo or even a team-up. The projects leading up to this point have felt like Gunn trying to recreate the success of “Guardians Of The Galaxy”; “Supergirl” only reinforces this notion. “Supergirl” won’t make people who dislike Gunn believe in the DCU.
With all that being said, even if I personally found the film enjoyable, kids won’t. Krem is too gross; he kidnaps child brides to reproduce and keep his species alive. But it’s not the subject matter; it’s how it’s portrayed that will make kids dislike it. Alternatively, the titular “Supergirl” never becomes the superhero she’s known to be in the comics. Since the movie itself is also nothing to write home about, it’s no surprise that “Supergirl” didn’t make a larger box office splash.
I know I’ve been going pretty hard on this film, but I enjoyed watching it. I actually enjoyed watching it more than a lot of people out there, I think. Alcock’s performance again really carried it for me. She really made the character relatable, and while I don’t think the ending makes her someone to aspire to, she did a good job considering what she was given. It’s a good film to get lost in for 108 minutes and forget the moment it ends.
And with that, I want to say as a final remark that “Supergirl” is disposable, a time waster. But sometimes that’s all a movie needs to be. It was entertaining enough for me to say that it was okay when I left the theater. If you’re on the fence about watching it, then I recommend you do.
6/10
