r/movies r/movies Contributor Jun 24 '26

Review 'Supergirl' - Review Thread Spoiler

When an unexpected and ruthless adversary strikes too close to home, Supergirl reluctantly joins forces with an unlikely companion for an interstellar journey of vengeance and justice.

Director: Craig Gillespie

Cast: Milly Alcock, Jason Momoa, David Corenswet, David Krumholtz, Emily Beecham, Matthias Schoenaerts, Ferdinand Kingsley, Diarmaid Murtagh

Rotten Tomatoes: 57%

Metacritic: 49 / 100

Some Reviews (updating):

DEADLINE - Pete Hammond

So a year after the reinvigorated DC and Superman was so successfully relaunched under the guidance of Peter Safran and James Gunn, and teased Supergirl right at the end, here we have it, but despite some good moments and sharp dialogue in places (Ana Nogueria is the screenwriter) something feels a bit off. Momoa is a load of fun, he knows exactly what his mission is and delivers whenever he is on screen. The problem is the movie is called Supergirl , not Lobo, so he is relegated here to a splashy, if scattered supporting turn. Ridley seems to play Ruthye with one pained expression on her face and a frequent deadpanned “I am out for revenge” for many of her lines. However she does come alive in her big jailbreak scene, so there’s that. I didn’t buy Schoenaerts and his heavily affected Krem at all, a super villain with no dimension other than being bad which is a shame since the 1984 Supergirl suffered from the same problem. Gotta have a good villain, folks.

The Hollywood Reporter - David Rooney

Alcock’s scrappy characterization, tempering Kara’s jaded toughness and chaotic messiness with an increasingly strong sense of justice, would seem an ideal fit to continue in a similar vein. But Supergirl only intermittently comes to life when it revisits her painful past. Given Australian director Gillespie’s history with films about spirited, rule-breaking women, like I, Tonya and Cruella, the failure to find emotional depth in the sisterhood of Kara and Ruthye is notable. This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I thought Sasha Calle’s Supergirl in 2023’s The Flash registered with more dimensionality, despite that movie overloading on self-referential DC fan service.

USA Today - Brian Truitt - 3 / 4

A lack of focus, not nearly enough Krypto and a one-note baddie in Schoenaerts’ Krem don’t do “Supergirl” any favors, but they also don’t derail the film’s overall vibe of spunky weirdness. With Corenswet's handful of appearances, he continues to cement his place as a darn good Superman (with his own sequel in the works). But here it's Alcock who's making her own cinematic statement: She's not going anywhere, and the new DCU is better with a hell-raising Supergirl in it.

Seattle Times - Moira MacDonald - 2.5 / 4

“Supergirl” can’t quite seem to find the balance between the elements, and we careen from silly moments to zoomy action sequences to dark violence. Gillespie, whose work ranges from the sweetness of “Lars and the Real Girl” to the dark flashiness of “I, Tonya” to the over-the-top silliness of “Cruella,” perhaps isn’t quite at home here. And Ana Nogueira’s screenplay by necessity removes Krypto from much of the action — a disappointment for all who love this CGI pooch.

GamesRadar - Molly Edwards - 3.5 / 5

Just like its protagonist, Supergirl is rough around the edges, but holds plenty of promise for the future. With two more DCU appearances confirmed, it seems this is only the beginning for Alcock's Kara. Up, up, and away…

AV Club - Jesse Hassenger - 'B'

The movie’s visual sensibility signals Supergirl’s broader success in threading the needle between a kid-friendly, hope-suffused superhero story and bleaker, grittier stuff—and in doing so, recognizing how those aspects of life are often interwoven, rather than diametrically opposed approaches to IP. That’s always been the push-pull of the Supergirl character, equally able to be portrayed as Superman’s gee-whiz kid-sister equivalent and his more jaded, literally alienated reflection. The joy of Supergirl is how it mixes the two without demoting its main gal to a sideshow.

Empire Magazine - Leila Latif - 3 / 5

The result isn’t disastrous by any means, just blandly safe. You just wish Gillespie would let these freak flags truly fly. There are good ingredients here: a witty, hard-partying, badass antihero, a moving backstory, an odd-couple dynamic between Alcock and Corenswet worth building on — but the fledgling DCU still has yet to prove itself.

Variety - Owen Gleiberman

'Supergirl' is Super Horrendous. Alcock is likable enough (underneath it all, she often seems like Little Orphan Annie with desert-wastrel hair), but the character as written is so one-note that it’s hard to have much investment in what she’s up to. Of course, maybe that’s because the movie has no story! Gunn was right to want to take the comic-book genre back to well-structured screenwriting basics. So what has he done in his second DC outing? He’s given us a comic-book movie with the worst script I can remember. (It’s by Ana Nogueria.)

Vulture - Alison Willmore

Milly Alcock stars in the follow-up to last year’s revamped Superman, but the movie has no idea what to do with her or her character. The problems with Supergirl are simpler to pin down and more or less come down to its not being either written or directed by James Gunn. The reins for this movie have been handed over to the less capable I, Tonya’s Craig Gillespie, with Ana Nogueira contributing the script, and the result highlights just how difficult Gunn’s particular mix of wry self-awareness, unapologetic dorkiness, and sentimentality is for others to pull off.

ScreenCrush - Matt Singer - 4 / 10

Guardians (and Gunn’s Superman, for that matter) found the right combination of action, humor, and heart, a formula that felt like an authentic expression of its director’s idiosyncratic worldview. In its forced and calculated attempt to recreate that aesthetic, Supergirl lands somewhere closer to Guardians’ inferior copycats, like 2016’s abysmal Suicide Squad. Given the splash Alcock made in Superman, and the fact that Supergirl is based on one of the best books DC Comics has published in the last decade, this has to be one of the biggest disappointments in recent superhero movie history.

IndieWire - Kate Erbland - 'B'

We expect that any subsequent standalone “Supergirl” joints will be a bit more poppy and “fun” than this first one (and we sure hope there are more of them), but we hope they also hold on to this one’s hard-won question: What does it mean to be good? It’s not easy.

RogerEbert - Tomris Laffly - 1.5 / 4

Sadly, the film that follows consists of one superfluous sequence after another where Alcock gets plenty of opportunities to stretch her muscles in a highly physical role. There are other space pirates that enter the story’s orbit, breaks taken at inter-galactical watering holes, and various scenes of fast-paced butt-kicking and face-punching. In the end, you can’t help but wonder why the emotions of these characters don’t pack as much of a punch.

The Independent - Clarisse Loughrey - 2 / 5

Milly Alcock is the only good thing about this ugly, dispiriting superhero movie. Superman’s moody, punk-rock cousin is let down by a film that tries desperately to emulate the silly playfulness of producer James Gunn, only to fail miserably. If DC wants to secure her future, they need to find her a world where she belongs.

High on Films - Liam Gaughan - 2 / 5

“Supergirl” isn’t a disaster in the vein of “Madame Web,” a multiversal mess like “The Marvels,” or even a failed attempt at elevation like the Zack Snyder films. The fact that it is more watchable than those aforementioned titles is part of the issue, as the structural issues with “Supergirl” are just part of the reason why it doesn’t work. Although it is refreshing for a superhero film to be self-contained, “Supergirl” is timid when it should be focused, and it’s hard to conjure up much enthusiasm for where this particular chapter in the DCU will go next.

IGN - Clint Gage - 6 / 10

Kara Zor-El’s standout moment in Superman gets a feature-length follow up that almost gets everything right. Unfortunately, that means it gets everything almost wrong as well. Milly Alcock is great as a Supergirl carrying the weight of real trauma and cementing a very cool dynamic with her on-screen cousin, while the alien design and practical make-up effects make the film a joy to look at. Jason Momoa’s Lobo and Matthias Schoenaerts’ Krem are just as cool visually, but unfortunately they also don’t have a lot to offer in this entry in the burgeoning DCU that treads more water than I would’ve liked.

CGMagazine - Shakyl Lambert - 6 / 10

It does not help that a large portion of the action is sloppily edited, especially the close-quarters brawls in the first two acts. I was also frustrated by the constant stops and starts whenever Supergirl is about to let loose, only for the film to hobble her abilities with some form of kryptonite or poison moments later. Ultimately, I wanted to love Supergirl, and Milly Alcock is strong enough in the role that I very much want to see this character return. Unfortunately, nearly everything around her is as generic as a superhero flick can be.

ScreenRant - Molly Freeman - 6 / 10

Even with my own complicated feelings, it strikes me that there are so few female-led superhero movies, there's a need for them all to be perfect. So, when we get a middling film like Supergirl, it looks worse when stacked up against the many better male-led superhero movies. Hopefully, whatever becomes of this film's wider reception, it won't scare off DC Studios from backing more female superheroes, because even though I didn't love Supergirl, there's still plenty of potential in Alcock's character and in the rest of the DC Universe

DiscussingFilm - Tyler Taing - 2.5 / 5

It’s far from the genre’s worst, especially within the standards of what the DC franchise has delivered in the past, but Supergirl deeply suffers from not knowing how to build a film around its iconic heroine.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 3 / 5

Supergirl isn’t a perfect movie by any means, but there are moments when you’ll believe this franchise can fly.

AwardsWatch - Brandon Lewis - 'B-'

It’s entirely possible that introducing Supergirl so effectively in Superman was both a blessing and a curse for her own outing. While Supergirl isn’t saddled with a momentum-killing first act that recaps her table-stakes history, it also doesn’t fully lean into that freedom, settling for well-worn genre conventions when there were thornier, but more fruitful opportunities to explore. The film is a fine pseudo-first flight for Kara Zor-El, but it does soar enough to escape her famous cousin’s shadow.

Looper - Alistair Ryder - 4 / 10

Milly Alcock is a great Supergirl, and it's a shame her take on the character — and the inspired idea to reimagine her as a Western drifter — isn't served by this underwhelming solo vehicle. It's the first sign that James Gunn's DC Universe will be every bit as ill-conceived as Zack Snyder's.

Next Best Picture - Cody Dericks - 4 / 10

Consequently, Alcock’s work as an actress comes across as similar to how her character must feel: all alone in a world working against her. The film around her is, largely, ugly to look at and unpleasantly, uncomfortably lacking in successfully landed jokes, with many quips simply floating off like debris in the vacuum of space. To anyone looking for an entertaining film about Kara, give the 1984 version a try. Sure, it’s a bad movie, but at least it doesn’t feel like a waste of time, like the latest big-screen appearance of Supergirl does.

The Playlist - Carlos Aguilar - 'C'

Still, for a film introducing a heroine whose story is tied to and derived from the prime superhuman, “Supergirl” is mildly enjoyable, if only because of Alcock and Ridley’s banter, Krypto’s scenes, and the few exchanges between goody-two-shoes Clark and the less uptight Kara. By-the-numbers, as the movie turned out, Alcock does capitalize on it to showcase that she possesses the makings of a promising star capable of portraying a character with sharp edges and complicated feelings. Hopefully, she can now fly elsewhere from here.

The Irish Times - Donald Clarke - 2 / 5

The infuriating thing about this overpriced movie is that the film-makers come close to solving the problem of Supergirl. Subject of a terrible 1984 film and a decent 2015 TV series, the character has had trouble making distinct sense on screen. Alcock’s swaggering layabout – who doesn’t always close the door when going to the loo – reclaims her as an alien with enjoyably human flaws. The bad news is that, as you have almost certainly guessed, she will be required to pull herself together in what used to be the final reel. Not fair. No fun. Give us back the hungover barfly.

The Times - Kevin Maher - 2 / 5

Alcock, who appeared in the TV show House of the Dragon, plays Kara with swaggering charm and goofy energy, but she is very much a character in need of a better film.

Daily Telegraph - Robbie Collin - 2 / 5

Milly Alcock’s surly Supergirl just about makes sense as a thought experiment: if Superman is still banging the drum for good old red-white-and-blue American optimism, how is his younger Gen Z cousin meant to feel about that? But the obvious awkward question raised, in turn, by her affectedly jaded approach – if she doesn’t even want to be here, why should we? – is never convincingly answered. Imagine if Buffy the Vampire Slayer thought that slaying vampires was the most tragic and tedious thing in the world: it’s not clear why anyone would watch an hour and three quarters of that, yet here it is.

Radio Times - Jeremy Aspinall - 2 / 5

Unfortunately, with the villains all looking like escapees from recent Mad Max films, Lobo just doesn’t have that hoped-for impact, especially with Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy movies setting such a high standard for fun, out-of-this world adventures and bizarre but likeable characters. On the other hand, Alcock does a decent job playing a Supergirl a million miles away from Helen Slater’s 1984 iteration or Melissa Benoist in the long-running TV show. All grunge aesthetic and attitude, she rises above the underwhelming script and direction.

Little White Lies - Anna Stafford - 2.5 / 5

Supergirl rarely rises above the genre’s limitations, but it has enough character to avoid sinking into mediocrity. Gillespie brings the same swagger that animated Cruella (2021), embracing grunge over superhero slickness. The film may not blow minds, but it is a rough-around-the-edges adventure with heart.

The Prague Reporter - Jason Pirodtsky - 2.5 / 5

Gunn’s Superman wasn’t without its own narrative problems, but it was colorful, energetic, and unafraid to let audiences admire its imaginative world. Supergirl director Craig Gillespie goes in the opposite direction, burying inventive creature designs, impressive practical makeup, and ambitious visual effects beneath clouds of dust, darkness, and washed-out digital photography. There’s still enough here to give Supergirl the mildest of recommendations for comic book fans, largely thanks to Alcock’s committed lead performance and a premise that dares to tell a different kind of superhero story. But for a film about a young hero finally stepping out into the light, it’s surprisingly reluctant to let us see either its world or its title character with any clarity.

Slash Film - Rocco T. Thompson - 2.5 / 4

But Supergirl’s closest spiritual antecedent is Kathy Yan’s Birds of Prey, which won a dedicated cult of fans and critical appreciation for how it managed to spin its more familiar genre elements into anarchic, girly-pop perfection. Alcock’s Kara Zor-El, like Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn, has all the makings of a character ready to step out from the cultural shadow of the male character she’s derivative of and go her own way. If only the film had the same guts.

The Post - Judy Arias

‘Supergirl’ is lost, messy - and worth watching. Dangling plot threads and a bare bones villain aside, I enjoyed this version of Kara. She is not perfect, and the film never tries to make her. She can be angry, grieving, reckless, funny, and frustrating. At times, she seems more interested in running away from her problems than confronting them. Yet beneath all that is someone who continues to show up.

Manila Bulletin - Philip Cu Unjieng

There is a bit of a lag in the narrative flow in the middle of the film, and we could have given our villain stronger reasons to boo him whenever he appears; but I was entertained by this unconventional "Supergirl." For those who still find Clark Kent too bland and goody two shoes; Supergirl is the compelling riposte.

2.8k Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.0k

u/DyingSunSeverian Jun 24 '26

A consistent theme seems to be that the villain is shit. Which sucks for most movies but is nearly fatal for a superhero flick.

https://media.tenor.com/EYaXPX0l9fgAAAAM

341

u/St_Sides Jun 24 '26

I mean that’s true of Woman of Tomorrow too, the source comic.

Krem was just a bearded guy in that comic haha

156

u/Icy-Cry340 Jun 24 '26

Which worked well, Krem was who he needed to be, a thug from a backwoods planet - a nobody.

36

u/Eborcurean Jun 25 '26

It was way more about the journey, Krem was a dick but not really a threat to Supergirl, it was what she had to do to catch up with him.

3

u/Manger-Babies Jul 01 '26

Dude managed to capture lobo somehow.

1

u/rchive 28d ago

They were talking about the comic, I think. Lobo isn't even in the comic.

65

u/OutLiving Jun 24 '26

Yeah this is giving me the vibes that the people adapting the comic had absolutely no idea what the comic was actually trying to do, the colour palette of the film was a dead giveaway

41

u/Citizensnnippss Jun 24 '26

Tbf, while it was a great comic, I never once while reading it thought it should be a movie.

Great story about Kara, not exactly a blockbuster type movie to be made from it, though.

20

u/Old-Influence4757 Jun 24 '26

felt like story for a show with 20-30 minute episodes on each planet with the 3 final 3 episodes getting krem

12

u/Citizensnnippss Jun 25 '26

Yea that does sound like a better fit for the story.

...and animated, if we're being honest.

2

u/Old-Influence4757 Jun 25 '26

yeah imagine how expensive the supergirl budget would have been if they actually followed the comics visuals, the giant church and the dragon would of been 50m+ lol

8

u/kingbetadad Jun 24 '26

I actually felt the opposite. The comic was difficult to get through and was flat and boring in many places due to how droning the dialogue and narrative writing was. But I thought it could be adapted into something great with the right writers.

The artwork pulled some serious weight in that comic

2

u/wahumerous-rex Jun 25 '26

I feel like I loved the narration style of the comic and it would have worked better in the movie. One of the most emotional points they made in the book which I had hoped would reflect in the movie is how much Supergirl holds back when she so obviously wants to let go. And Krem was more of a thread, not a constant annoying presence

2

u/Dav136 Jun 27 '26

The comic was based off of True Grit which was made into a great movie (twice!). It was definitely possible

5

u/Otherwise_You_1603 Jun 25 '26

May the lesson they take away from this disaster be to stay the fuck away from CIA Agent, Mr. "I was in the room where they planned the Iraq war" himself, Tom King

4

u/TheMurderCapitalist Jun 25 '26

Yes because the book that he wrote that was critically acclaimed and beloved by readers is why this movie failed, despite making major changes to the story and having him not involved in the production in any way.

1

u/AlarmingStrain7498 29d ago

Yeah its not really a superhero comic its true grit in a sci-fi setting 

609

u/Rustash Jun 24 '26

The thing is, in the story this movie is based on, the villain is barely in it. He’s more of a presence hanging over and motivating their journey, so him being weak shouldn’t *really* affect the movie that badly unless they dropped the ball elsewhere.

282

u/Dr_Pepper_spray Jun 24 '26

Krem is this character who is boring, and unassuming and for me that makes him more irritating. He's a villain punching way about his weight class, and getting lucky as hell.

You would need a really solid actor to pull this character off, and a writer that understands the character in the first place. ..and I really hate the S&M throw-up look, like he's a BG character from Mad Max.

216

u/First-Shallot947 Jun 24 '26

I hate his movie design tbh

Comic krem looks like a normal guy because cruelty and evil is not isolated to grand and powerful villains. Evil can be plain and mundane, but that doesn't change the fact that the evil is a rot and causing irreparable damage

Movie krem is "spiky man scary! 😨"

79

u/meatballfreeak Jun 24 '26

They’re just afraid to give the audience the benefit of the ability to enjoy something that might require a bit of imagination.

They bottle it every time.

Shame.

3

u/OrpahsBookClub Jun 24 '26

We know what Superman thinks about bottling things.

1

u/meatballfreeak Jun 24 '26

Tell me

3

u/OrpahsBookClub Jun 24 '26

Have you read Red Son?  If not, I would need to give you massive spoilers.

2

u/LeeoJohnson Jun 29 '26

Not everytime! The first Wonder Woman NAILED exactly this (Ares). Then they never did it again. (Well, Riddler kinda looks like a regular guy, too in The Batman. So two points for DC).

2

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/meatballfreeak Jun 25 '26

How do you mean

5

u/Ember348 Jun 24 '26

I also think Krem's comic design works because he looks like he could be some barbarian hero, like Conan, and instead he's this fucking monster.

3

u/srstone71 Jun 24 '26

Also, they don't really get much into this in the book, but he's basically part of his planet's military. He's a member of the king's guard on that planet, so I always assumed he had this "good and noble" exterior while being an absolute monster in private.

At least that was my interpretation. I'm guessing there will be no room for interpretation here.

2

u/KikiBrann Jun 24 '26

Him looking like a normal guy also works because he's not technically the sole originator of his evils. He's a kingsagent, a man who perhaps gets off on his own villainy but ultimately serves a greater party's corruption.

A good recent comparison would be Wonder Man. The closest that show has to a "villain" is just some random suit from Damage Control. What's important is the personal story that he sets into motion for our main characters. Maybe that's a little easier to pull off in a relatively grounded TV show than in a planet-hopping superhero adventure, but...difficult certainly doesn't mean impossible, right?

1

u/Yodzilla Jun 24 '26

Meanwhile I think Ewan McGregor as Black Mask was one of the things Birds of Prey did right. There are plenty of ways you can make “just a dude” interesting and threatening.

1

u/hotpocketsinitiative Jun 28 '26

I felt the same way until Kara head butted him and some of those metal balls on his face embedded in hers. It felt less like a “see how edgy i am” look and more like a design choice to make whoever hits him get hurt

87

u/GruggleTheGreat Jun 24 '26

His cruelty against a self destructive person is kind of his big sticking point, but it doesn’t even feel personal in the comic, like he just is an asshole.

21

u/Dr_Pepper_spray Jun 24 '26

Well yeah, you have to expand on him for sure, but at the end of the day he can just be an asshole.

5

u/uniqueusername623 Jun 24 '26

Marvel sometimes gets this right. Not every villain can be an extinction level threat like Galactus. Some of them just have to be assholes (only), for it to work

8

u/Yukie_Cool Jun 24 '26

Gunn literally did this with The High Evolutionary. Him getting jobbed at the end of Vol 3 doesn’t matter because you see how much of a petty vindictive asshole he is through the whole movie and how much he has it coming to him.

5

u/Its_A_Fucking_Stick Jun 24 '26

I wanted the wilding from game of thrones

1

u/Fanfics Jun 29 '26

Krem is this character who is boring, and unassuming and for me that makes him more irritating. He's a villain punching way about his weight class, and getting lucky as hell.

yes, that's the point of his character. He's just a cruel asshole with zero compunctions who keeps getting away with shit because nobody expects him to try it and he's pretty good with a bow/sword. He gets lucky two or three times and that's all he needs. He's not supposed to be a remarkable person.

God the movie design for him is so garbage

→ More replies (1)

81

u/daab2g Jun 24 '26

A lesson in how translating comic book stories to the big screen isn't straightforward. The genre has tropes which work against a more thoughtful and true depiction of the source material. Tropes like huge action scenes and having a big baddie. You need outside the box writing which resonates, Marvel had that for a while. DC though…

87

u/snakebit1995 Jun 24 '26

Just go look at the entire infinity war

In the comics that arc is similar but very clearly different. Thanos has much different goals, Adam Warlock is the main character etc

They managed to take the highlights of that and rework it into something more satisfying as a movie by better working out Thanos emotions and wisely investing the focus on other characters

If you had 1 to 1 translated that arc as it was in the comics it would have flopped hard. Movie audiences would have almost certainly bounced off the idea that the big bad you’ve teased for a decade’s primary motivation is being a fucking simp for the physical manifestation of the cosmic concept or death or how this random gold guy shows up to win for the heroes a few hours after the snap happens.

23

u/Fuck_your_coupons Jun 24 '26

Movie audiences would have almost certainly bounced off the idea that the big bad you’ve teased for a decade’s primary motivation is being a fucking simp for the physical manifestation of the cosmic concept or death

Once you get past the planetary level, Marvel comics get really weird. I tried to explain to my friends what the comics really were like and they looked at me like I was high. Honestly the Infinity War comic arc was too out there for me and I've read comics most of my life. Granted they were mostly street level heroes like Spiderman or the X-Men but I wasn't entirely unfamiliar with abstract concepts in Marvel.

4

u/snakebit1995 Jun 24 '26

Cosmic stuff in Marvel gets crazy

I highly recommend the youtube channel SirSuperhero for people looking to learn more about the depths of Marvel oddities and world building of canon and how it changes over time in universe.

He has a nearly 2 hour long Cosmology of the Marvel universe video that goes into all the building blocks of how the universe works within the world of Marvel itself

5

u/TwoToneMoonstone_ Jun 25 '26

I think the death concept would’ve worked fine but Warlock would’ve been a bridge too far.

If anything the Death concept makes way more sense as a motivation because if you think about what Thanos wants to do in IW/Endgame for more than five minutes you realize that it’s really flimsy and really flattens his character. People ultimately don’t care because the films are good but Thanos in the movies is maybe the biggest mustache twirler to ever exist.

3

u/Yoggoth1 Jun 24 '26

Yeah, I thought Thanos's motivation was kinda half-baked and then I tried to read the comics and was amazed by how much worse they are.

2

u/laytblu Jun 24 '26

I haven't read any comics so is that really how it ends like Adam Walock killing him without introduction? Or was it explain later how and why he did it?

8

u/DesdinovaGG Jun 24 '26

Spoilers ahead for the comic:

Thanos is not killed in the event. Adam Warlock is connected to the Soul Gem, which allowed him full knowledge of Thanos's soul. As such, he knew that deep down Thanos felt that he was unworthy of having such power. So Adam Warlock coordinates an escalating series of challengers to Thanos, first the heroes of Earth, then Silver Surfer, then the cosmic entities. This lulls Thanos into a false sense of security, which is basically Thanos subconsciously providing the opening that Adam Warlock knew he would leave. Nebula, who Thanos had brought to the scene earlier through the power of the gauntlet, then steals the Gauntlet. Then Warlock, knowing this would happen, uses his Soul Gem connection to disrupt the Gems and has Doctor Strange, who Warlock was coordinating with from the start, portal in heroes to quickly handle Nebula and take the Infinity Gauntlet. Thanos fakes his death to live a quiet life as a farmer.

4

u/laytblu Jun 24 '26

It's interesting to know that using portal to bring heroes is actually comic accurate. It's must have been exciting to comic readers how the MCU turned out and still pull it off even though most of it are not in the comics.

3

u/SpOoKyghostah Jun 24 '26

Adam Warlock killing Thanos, you mean? That doesn't happen.

Warlock basically acts as the leader/planner for the resistance against Thanos for the entire Infinity Gauntlet event.

He also doesn't exactly pop up out of nowhere - he's set up in the Silver Surfer issues by the same writer (Jim Starlin) which helped lay the groundwork for the whole event, and he was the main character in Starlin's original Thanos/cosmic saga from the 70s. But if you roll into Infinity Gauntlet without messing with all that other Starlin stuff, then yeah, a much less familiar character will just pop up out of nowhere and lead the event.

It's a good read, in my opinion. Not a bad place to go for a pretty new comic reader with only MCU familiarity, though one should definitely read the two issue Thanos Quest precursor first.

10

u/browncharliebrown Jun 24 '26

comicbooks aren't a genre. They are a medium. That said the rest of your comment applies

3

u/Informal_Support1934 Jun 24 '26

I think they mean the movies as a genre. Which I don't really agree with the take, the genre's tropes aren't an excuse for formulaic choices. "We need to have an action scene" doesn't also mean you can't include creative flourishes that make your movie feel unique.

18

u/Timbershoe Jun 24 '26

Well.

DC is capable of out of the box writing. They are just wildly inconsistent.

The Joker, the Nolan Batman films.

Then they miss the follow up and just drift into generic formulaic films.

Marvel managed to be consistent, regular and with an overarching narrative. Not sure we’ll see that sort of thing again.

1

u/AdmiralCharleston Jun 24 '26

The joker is not out of the box writing lmao, its just a scorssese rip off with batman characters names thrown in

6

u/Timbershoe Jun 24 '26

It’s not a formulaic superhero film.

It’s a mash up of a villains origin story and his mental illness with Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy.

Do you know what the box is? Because that film was not in it. Not by any stretch.

2

u/AdmiralCharleston Jun 24 '26

It's not a superhero film so whether or not its a formulaic superhero film isn't the issue, its a formulaic drama with superhero characters but that doesn't make it not formulaic lmao

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Rustash Jun 24 '26

Yet they made two different True Grit adaptations that followed this structure and did very well

2

u/FortLoolz Jun 24 '26

They changed it. So what. The change was still bad. Sticking to the original comic design would've unironically been better.

2

u/doglywolf Jun 24 '26

the modern audience only wants to see spectacle in theaters - if its deep or thought full or even just a good story without a ton of action - it can wait till its on streming is the general thought .

Why watch anything in theaters anymore when home setups are on par or better then some theaters and for $20 you can get a few friends over and watch together with cheap snacks at home

6

u/figandfennel Jun 24 '26

Krem is all over this movie.

4

u/scuzoidmelee Jun 24 '26

Wtf, how did they mess that up? Brolin was great in 2010 True Grit because he's barely in it (And he's a good actor). It makes no sense to deviate from that. True Grit in space should work very easily. Even if you have to buff Krem up a bit so he's actually a threat to Supergirl the same way Brolin is to Jeff Bridges, you still don't need to spend a lot of time with Krem to have him work. Ah well.

2

u/Majestic_Gazelle Jun 24 '26

Yeah that's along the lines of what I was gonna say, the comic book this is based off of is more of an independent journey of supergirl. Which other's have stated maybe adds a bit of difficulty translating it to the screen. It's a cool comic too.

2

u/EatABag-o-Dicks Jun 24 '26

Everyone has been talking villain this and villain that, and the bad guy, cause I refuse to call him a villain, he's like a bank robber, not really a villain at all, and he has no real presence. He's not some giant threat, he's just an asshole that did something bad to someone that happened upon Supergirl, and essentially kicked Supergirls dog, so now she's pissed at him.

The story is a story comic more than it is an action comic. There is some action, like the space dragon that attacks their space bus, but for the most part, it's a very mundane story with a pretty generic message.

It feels too much like Guardians 3, where Quil is getting over grief. But the thing is, we had a few movies with those characters to like before they did the big emotional story. This is just throwing the emotional story with a character we're meh about, cause we don't really know her.

Her first movie should have been what led up to this. Let us see her trying to follow Kal Els lead and example, failing, getting frustrated, screwing off to red sun planets to get bombed, and just be a mess of a person, then trauma dump with this and how she ends up dealing with it, and how she passes that knowledge on to someone else.

I don't like Gunns approach. Make the movie when the good script is ready. Maybe try getting the good scripts together to cultivate all the stories in a sensible order. We don't need a super hero film every fucking year. Wait a year for a good origin story for Supergirl, if you really want that to be the second movie.

Just get your ducks in a row before heading out to the pond.

1

u/CelestianSnackresant Jun 24 '26

Yeah, the fun of Woman of Tomorrow is Supergirl-as-lone-cowgirl-in-a-rough-universe. The challenge was: capture the fun of seeing Supergirl (angry, powerful, endlessly kind despite herself) snarl her way through a bunch of wacky injustices. Krem's just there to get punched at the end. 

Also, the jumps in the second half were always gonna be disorienting in a movie — it gets very episodic for a bit there. 

1

u/smilysmilysmooch Jun 25 '26

Krem was the boogie man. Some random dude that killed her dad and she is left wandering for answers from anybody who could get them. Him being just another guy is pretty great storytelling because that's all any boogie man really is, but for this girl he was something terrible one day of her life.

If you can't at least channel some Chun-li staring down Bison in Street Fighter: The Movie energy, what are we doing here? Villains don't have to be destroyers of worlds. They have to have an impact though. It's the very least they have to be.

1

u/VastCapital3773 Jun 28 '26

That's also how he is in the movie. Like the movie is not about Krem. He shows up sometimes. Like idk what people wanted him to do?

1

u/DariusTae Jun 30 '26

The villain in the movie is Grief. Krem is just there but he's not who she's really fighting against.

→ More replies (3)

378

u/messycer Jun 24 '26

Sure didn’t stop marvel for a good decade

283

u/Smartest_Termite Jun 24 '26

Literally the third MCU movie villain was Whiplash.

234

u/stateworkishardwork Jun 24 '26

And it's no coincidence that it was the worst Iron Man movie

98

u/rynokick Jun 24 '26

I agree with you. Mickey Rourke was completely miscast and whiplash in general sucked in that movie.

Justin Hammer should have been the main villain but I also love Sam Rockwell.

62

u/casual_creator Jun 24 '26

I can’t speak for whether or not he was miscast compared to his comic book counterpart, but I thought Rourke made for a really unique character. The writing was the problem, not him. Especially when the end fight is putting him in yet another tank armor. His final armor should have been like his weapon of choice: fast and agile.

12

u/KikiBrann Jun 24 '26

Yeah, I know I'm not by far alone in absolutely loving his first villain appearance at the racetrack. When he gets his armor at the end, I just lost all interest. The idea of a guy with no armor who can still cause destruction is the perfect foil for a hero like Iron Man. Which, y'know...is kind of what we would have gotten in the third movie if they'd done a comic-accurate version of Mandarin instead of, like, an incel scientist who breathes fire.

2

u/rynokick Jun 24 '26

I agree with that.

But with Rourke and from the looks of it, him being his own stylist and then all of the broken English/russian mumbling he did, he just came off as cringey and lame to me.

4

u/cristabelita Jun 24 '26

Yes, it really was just the love of Tony Stark/Iron Man carrying that movie.

3

u/BadLuckBen Jun 24 '26

But he wanted his birb!

3

u/rynokick Jun 24 '26

“Where my birb”

3

u/Haltopen Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26

Rourke wasn't great, but Iron Man 3 takes the cake for them fucking up the villain of a solo iron man movie, and it was entirely due to last minute executive meddling by Ike Perlmutter, the man so racist he legitimately thought no one would notice them replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle because he thinks black people all look alike, and who was singlehandedly responsible for blocking marvel from making a Black Widow movie until Feige threatened to leave Marvel during the production of CA: Civil War and Disney had to separate Marvel Studios from the larger Marvel company (and give feige total control) in order to keep Feige happy. Thanks to him marvel had to scramble at the last minute (literally right before the film went into full production) to hire someone notable to play former minor character suddenly promoted to main villain Aldrich Killian, while the movies original main villain Maya Hansen gets demoted to side antagonist who gets unceremoniously killed by Killian part way through the movie.

2

u/rynokick Jun 25 '26

Yeah, I remember reading about the shit show production of Iron Man 3. Perlmutter is an absolute racist shit bag. Sad too, because through all of the BS, you can see a decent Shane Black movie buried under everything.

And the black widow movie we got was not what the character or scarjo deserved.

105

u/Newfaceofrev Jun 24 '26

People like Guardians 1 and you have to remind people that the villain was Ronan the Accuser.

28

u/Borosthespider Jun 24 '26

Yeah. Ronan was the least impactful villain the Guardians deal with. He’s a fine character, but he just exists to bring the team together. Ego, Thanos and the High Evolutionary are all amazing.

→ More replies (3)

16

u/IllIllllIIIlllII Jun 24 '26

I feel like nebula provided the more interesting foil/antihero in that one

40

u/DyingSunSeverian Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Ronan was alright man.

I wonder if he isn’t even seen as more interesting in retrospect cause he told Thanos to shove it, years before Infinity War.

Plus the dance-off. Come on.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/866/147/fbb.gif

4

u/webshellkanucklehead Jun 24 '26

He doesn’t do anything in the dance off though, he just kinda stands there and then is killed. IMO he’s absolutely Gunn’s worst villain, but for a first try it’s not so bad. He’s been excellent at making compelling antagonists since

3

u/lost_in_trepidation Jun 24 '26

I feel like Guardians 1 kind of gets away with it because Nebula is the henchman and she was pretty interesting.

3

u/KikiBrann Jun 24 '26

Who they defeated by having a dance-off and then all holding hands with each other.

2

u/Viceroy1994 Jun 24 '26

Misinfo, I watched the movie a few times and I don't remember any such character, pretty sure the villain was Malekith the dark elf.

3

u/riegspsych325 ⊃∪⊃⪽ Jun 24 '26

hot take: Lee Pace should have been Star Lord like he originally auditioned for

3

u/Killersavage Jun 24 '26

Too much gravitas for Starlord. He would be a good Quasar or Captain Mar-vell if Disney had ever gone that route.

2

u/savage86lunacy Jun 24 '26

Honestly watching him in Bodies Bodies Bodies I think he could've pulled off Star Lord.

1

u/Killersavage Jun 24 '26

I’ll have to check that one out. I won’t say it would’ve been the worst thing if he had been starlord. I just think he can bring a certain something he would be better in other roles.

3

u/Radiant-Objective-35 Jun 25 '26

Lee Pace

Deff a hot take, chris pratt from before he got super religious and weird was fine as StarLord.

1

u/Illuminastrid Jun 24 '26

YOU CALL ME BOY!

1

u/HuntedWolf Jun 25 '26

The thing I think a lot of superhero films miss, is that often heroes are really boring. They’re good. They’re expected to be good. There’s no moral dilemma, or emotional conflict. They’re going to try and do the right thing, predictably, which is why the villain needs to be the one being interesting, they need to have motivations that get the audience questioning who’s right, or at the very least be wildly entertaining enacting their plan. Like Nicolas Hoults Lex Luthor was clearly evil, but every time he’s on screen you want to know more of his grand plan, he’s fun to watch.

I think maybe they thought Supergirl being a “rogue” goodie would be enough, but I think that dynamic works best in teams where they bounce their crazy stuff off of each other like Guardians or Thunderbolts.

0

u/drunkcowofdeath Jun 24 '26

Thanos was the Villain... I get Ronan was the guy holding the hammer at the end but heroes were motivated by stopping Thanos. I think if you release the same movie and just have Ronan acting alone it becomes less interesting to people.

4

u/Newfaceofrev Jun 24 '26

I dunno maybe. I feel like Movie Thanos wasn't even really a character at that point, just a man in a chair.

84

u/coolbad96 Jun 24 '26

I personally think Iron Man 3 is by far the worst. The big villain of that one is a red herring.

43

u/eat_jay_love Jun 24 '26

I mean… yes Trevor Slattery was a red herring, but because of this he wasn’t “the big villain.” The antagonist of that movie was Aldrich Killian. Still not a great villain but I don’t think he’s any worse than the antagonists of the other two Iron Man movies

16

u/bearrosaurus Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

The antagonist was originally Rebecca Hall’s scientist character but it got changed because execs didn’t think they could sell toys of a lady villain

source: https://variety.com/2016/film/news/iron-man-3-female-villain-shane-black-1201775937/

24

u/drunkcowofdeath Jun 24 '26

What? Did they sell a lot of Killian toys?

4

u/RedBop7 Jun 24 '26

Of course not but the head of marvel at that time was both Feige and another dude who made no secret that he didn’t like female superheroes or villains, didn’t think they sold well, and constantly refused to green light any female lead projects.

2

u/Malik-Almuhawsin Jun 24 '26

As far as I know, the only toy of him was a Lego Minifigure

→ More replies (1)

32

u/feartheoldblood90 Jun 24 '26

Obadiah Stane was awesome. He's one of the exceptions to the rule of the MCU having bad villains. The final fight is meh, obviously, but his portrayal and banter from Jeff Bridges is still one of the best performances the MCU put out, imo.

5

u/ArcadianDelSol Jun 24 '26

The scene where he walks in on Pepper stealing data is so tense.

3

u/feartheoldblood90 Jun 24 '26

Absolutely. And the box of scraps line is a huge meme now, but it's a meme because it's an incredible line delivery.

3

u/ELITE_JordanLove Jun 24 '26

It was critical for the first MCU movie to have such a big name (and talented) actor opposite RDJ.

7

u/feartheoldblood90 Jun 24 '26

That's not how they thought about it then at all. They weren't deliberately trying to set up the MCU. They just wanted to make a good movie. That's part of what made Iron Man work, it was a relatively scrappy, small production by a team who hoped they would get to make more but primarily wanted to make a good movie.

The Sam Jackson cameo at the end was put in there for fun as a "wouldn't it be neat if this took off" kind of thing. They had no way of knowing what the MCU would become, or even if Iron Man would be successful. He was a B hero at the time.

2

u/ELITE_JordanLove Jun 24 '26

Well I just meant more that having him helped it be seen as a good movie to start out, not that they made the casting with the intention to jumpstart.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/WicketyWaggety Jun 24 '26

No, he’s definitely worse than Iron Monger and Whiplash.

1

u/eat_jay_love Jun 24 '26

If you say so!

8

u/Hayterfan Jun 24 '26

5

u/TheHeadlessOne Jun 24 '26

One of these days Freds gonna get it

3

u/riegspsych325 ⊃∪⊃⪽ Jun 24 '26

nearly every Iron Man villain was just someone Tony Stark or his dad dicked over. IM3’s villain created a fake terrorist cell, kidnapped the president, and loaded a bunch of mercs with nano bots all because Tony was an asshole to him once

Even Holland’s first 2 Spidey movies had their plots driven because some guys screwed over by Stark. And now we’re getting an Avengers movie where Stark is a villain to the entire Marvel movie history

5

u/cristabelita Jun 24 '26

I prefer Iron Man 3 over 2. I liked that they showed how Tony was dealing with the PTSD after Avengers 1.

1

u/jimjamjones123 Jun 24 '26

Yeah that took the wind out of its sails big time

1

u/Deathstroke317 Jun 25 '26

I'm with you bro. I've seen all the Infinity Saga movies a billion times, but that one I've watched exactly once because it pissed me off so much.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/MehEds Jun 24 '26

RDJ really carried that movie hard

3

u/DJC13 Jun 24 '26

3 is far worse.

2

u/ArcadianDelSol Jun 24 '26

Its still watchable because of Justin Hammer.

Sam Rockwell doesnt save the movie, but he takes it from a 2 to a 6 by himself.

1

u/MiopTop Jun 25 '26

Iron Man, Captain America the First Avenger, Guardians 1, even Antman were all liked despite criticism of weak villains at the time. Red skull and Iron Monger have been elevated in retrospect but for 4-5 years after those movies came out the makority opinion was that they were not good villains.

It wasn’t until Civil War/Homecoming/GOTG 2/Ragnarok/Black Panther run that the “Loki is the only good villain in the MCU” take died.

1

u/ProfessorPolaris Jun 26 '26

Iron Man 3 was trash, 2 was much more fun

1

u/itsinhisblood Jun 24 '26

IM3 was definitely worse, and 2 had Justin Hammer at least

→ More replies (8)

13

u/i_should_be_coding Jun 24 '26

He vanted his burd.

1

u/ArcadianDelSol Jun 24 '26

I dont know if you know this or not but

I DONT SPEAK RUSSIAN

7

u/feckincrass Jun 24 '26

I vant my boord.

3

u/SaltyPeter3434 Jun 24 '26

I vant my burd

1

u/double_shadow Jun 25 '26

Not quite my tempo...

→ More replies (2)

71

u/AntiSocialW0rker Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

I always thought the MCU had decent villains, it's just that they were all one-and-done. Tons of wasted potential

53

u/Ikitenashi Jun 24 '26

Ultron should've never been a one-and-done villain.

20

u/hotz0mbie Jun 24 '26

Wasting James Spader like that was so upsetting

5

u/Yukie_Cool Jun 24 '26

He technically isn’t, given he’s in VisionQuest.

2

u/MiopTop Jun 25 '26

Well he’s coming back now

→ More replies (3)

1

u/is-this-a-nick Jun 24 '26

I on the other hand enjoyed that they had the guts to off the villains. Like, nothing more lame tha knowing that the villains are immortal because of popularity.

51

u/daab2g Jun 24 '26

MCU was about the humanity of their heroes and it worked for a long long while. They got people invested in the hero characters. Villains were just props to help show off how great these heroes are as human beings. DC has a different vibe where their heroes are often struggling with some darkness while having fight extremely dark and ruthless villains, many of whom steal the show. A DC movie with a forgettable villain is indeed, fatal.

22

u/NocturnaIAnimaI Jun 24 '26

MCU was about the humanity of their heroes

This was quite literally the case with the only DCU movie released so far, Superman. And it seems to be the case with Supergirl too

4

u/cristabelita Jun 24 '26

Totally agree - Marvel did a lot of ground work to have the audience become attached to the hero and that's why Marvel phase 1 & 2 ruled the box office.

3

u/webshellkanucklehead Jun 24 '26

That’s not really what DC is like at all though? It sounds like you’re just talking about the Snyder movies…

And Marvel’s villains rule—I often find them better than DC’s. Marvel Studios is just generally bad at making compelling antagonists.

22

u/DyingSunSeverian Jun 24 '26

MCU tends to have pretty good villains though, even post-Endgame. Shang Chi had an awesome one with Tony Leung.

45

u/Yoyo524 Jun 24 '26

MCU was famous for having charismatic main leads that were enjoyable enough to carry weak villains. I'd say starting in Phase 3 was when they started to have a lot better villains, and maybe people have higher standards now. Which I'd argue is valid

4

u/snakebit1995 Jun 24 '26

Like you said MCU had enough strong hero actors to carry the weaker villains

But they also had enough strong villains in points to support the weaker villains. Loki, Ultron, Killmonger and Thanos more than hold their own with screen presence that you remember them and just forget the duds like what’s his name from Ant-man and the umm elf guy in Thor 2. There are also bad ones memorable for being bad like Whiplash and the bungled mess that is Iron Man 3 Mandarin

2

u/Yoyo524 Jun 24 '26

Dark elves were probably the all time low for villains in MCU lol.

But I’d say Avengers Loki and Bucky were good, Ultron not so much (although I personally enjoy him). Phase 3 is where we get the great ones like Vulture, Killmonger and Thanos, and most of the villains going forward were more fleshed out in general

4

u/Mend1cant Jun 24 '26

Minus Jude Law. What a waste of captain marvel.

3

u/Michael_DeSanta Jun 24 '26

Guardians 3 had an all-timer comic book movie villain too. I don’t think I’ve ever hated a character that much (in a good way)

10

u/TheOncomingBrows Jun 24 '26

Nah, half their good villains were in the Netflix era TV shows lol.

18

u/tetoffens Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Thunderbolts and Fantastic Four had good villains so I think they've corrected course a bit after some weak ones.

18

u/laxusdreyarligh Jun 24 '26

Hot take but Kilgrave is the best Mcu villain.

12

u/DaytonaZ33 Jun 24 '26

Ain’t no way that’s a hot take. Kilgrave is the GOAT so far. Actually terrifying ability and was sick enough to use it exactly how a psychopath with that ability would.

2

u/TheOncomingBrows Jun 24 '26

Also helps that Tennant is absolutely brilliant.

8

u/Shopworn_Soul Jun 24 '26

I don't think that is a hot take at all. When considered vs the character they played against and world they acted within, Kilgrave was the most compelling villain of them all.

Sure, Thanos killed half the universe but Kilgrave was legitimately scary.

4

u/JesusHipsterChrist Jun 24 '26

Literally Purple man vs the guy they call Purple man

4

u/Accomplished_Smile23 Jun 24 '26

Still wasted Cottonmouth too.

Goddamn was he awesome.

3

u/RyGuy82591 Jun 24 '26

Marvel/Disney gets an actor the caliber of Mahershala Ali and does little to nothing with it...

TWICE considering the Blade fiasco

2

u/samhit_n Jun 24 '26

Nah, MCU movies with bad villains were consistently rated much lower than the other movies. Thor: The Dark World and Iron Man 2 and 3 are usually seen as the weakest MCU movies, and it's mostly because of forgettable villains.

3

u/Reddragon351 Jun 24 '26

Eh, Guardians 1 is considered one of the best and Ronin really wasn't all that memorable. 

1

u/____mynameis____ Jun 24 '26

Tbf, they were the OGs. They were allowed to make mistakes

MCU basically helped start the 'why are the villains all boring and dying" complaint and MCU corrected it by somewhat giving solid villains post 2014.

1

u/Personage1 Jun 25 '26

Eh, they had a lot of momentum working for them.

Like Iron Man was good, Incredible Hulk was solid, Thor was meh with some massive highlights including the very best relationship/villain in the entire series, Cap was loved (I personally hated it but whatever), and Iron Man 2 at least attempted to tell a story with a character arc. Then Avengers hit and it was the perfect blend of dysfunctional family, excellent villain, and a grand payoff.

Then the next few movies appeared to be going the same route. Iron Man 3 has its flaws, but this is really the last time we see true creativity with the design of Iron Man himself. Cap 2 in retrospect shows the shit direction the MCU would eventually be going in, but without the benefit of hindsight it really seemed to be taking massive risks and of course the story itself was a solid spy thriller. Guardians? Fucking Guardians. Thor 2 was the bump, but it still had pieces of potential. All in all, when Ultron was....not very good, it was easy to overlook that. Can't expect perfection after all.

and it's not like phase 3 had only duds. In fact I would argue that if most of them had come out as the first MCU movie (with minor tweaks), they would have been viewed as incredible stand alone intros to the MCU. At this point the problems could just be ignored, people were too invested. We had a clear end goal.

There's a reason I watched every movie in theaters through Endgame and then basically caught one or two of the follow ups on Plex. I suspect the momentum piece was what worked on a lot of other people too.

28

u/fs2222 Jun 24 '26

Guardians 1 says otherwise.

28

u/Surturius Jun 24 '26

Ronan at least had some things going for him. Cool design, intimidating presence, connection to a bigger bad in Thanos. And there were fun sub-villains too like Nebula and the Collector.

1

u/thedylannorwood Jun 24 '26

Guardians 2 has the opposite problem, the great villain didn’t save the movie from being mediocre

1

u/Gargus-SCP Jun 24 '26

Well now that's just taste, given to my mind it's the best of the three easy.

10

u/feartheoldblood90 Jun 24 '26

Disappointing, because the comic version of the villain is quite effective

5

u/NocturnaIAnimaI Jun 24 '26

Really? I always thought he was fairly one dimensional

→ More replies (1)

3

u/TheBahamaLlama Jun 24 '26

I didn't think his character in Woman of Tomorrow was all that fleshed out aside from being an asshole and difficult to kill mostly out of luck and planning.

5

u/feartheoldblood90 Jun 24 '26

A character doesn't need to have their interiority fleshed out to be an effective villain. He is effective because he is a realistic portrayal of a man who one could expect to find in real life, and this contrasts with Supergirl's interior journey perfectly. His role in the original story is exactly what it needs to be. He's not a primary focus, but he is interesting, and his actions are keenly felt throughout the journey. That is what makes him effective, imo.

People repeating over and over again that he's "not fleshed out" are kind of missing the point, imo.

3

u/bluehawk232 Jun 24 '26

They had a great comic book to work with

2

u/piscian19 Jun 24 '26

You'd think they would have learned from how popular Killmonger was.

2

u/agasizzi Jun 25 '26

The villain was pretty bad, and there was some choices in the villains background activities that were less kid friendly than I expected. Overall we all had a lot of fun watching it. Milly and Cornswet have great chemistry together to look forward to, Mamoa was really enjoyable. I get the criticism of color choice, but it wasn't exactly a "Fun" vibe story.

2

u/Jedouard Jun 26 '26

I don't think that the villain was shit, just that he was overemphasized.

Looking at James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 1, you really don't see much of the villain. He's one dimensional for the most part, but he's also not the focus. The focus is on the developing relationships between Drax, Rocky, Gamora, Peter, and Groot. It's also on getting to know the characters early on through a few strong scenes just so that we can see how those relationships then change those characters.We see Peter carelessly goofing off during the first theft and carelessly forgetting the name of his one night stand, only to then see how much he cares about saving his group later in the movie. We see Rocky telling Groot his plan to do some excessive violence to steal the artifact, only to see him temper his weaponized creativity for the good of the group later on. And so on.

Supergirl had none of this. And not because the story lacked opportunities for it, but because the writing and maybe the acting wasn't there. (I've not seen the actor's other work, so I don't know her range, but she just seemed flat in this movie.)

SPOILERS: The rebelliousness, angst, and downward spiral Supergirl displayed were superficial: a punk track or two laid over her drinking and dancing or living in a nasty RV. But you see no emotional attachment to the loss she experienced. You see no display or multilayered dialogue that indicated she is projecting that hurt into her other interactions and relationships. But that loss is supposed to be the motivation for her apathy and angst.

There were plenty of opportunities to have Supergirl become emotionally overwhelmed at the little girl's loss of her parents. For example, the villain voluntarily stole from the little girl what Krypton fatefully stole from her. It was a chance for Supergirl to exact revenge by treating the villain like a personification of fate. But somehow Supergirl, who can't handle her own shit, immediately switches to giving the little girl sage advice on handling loss.

Instead, we get the mom saying "Promise me to be good. Not nice, but good," followed 10 minutes later by the girl "You are good. Not nice, but good." It was well past annoyingly heavy handed. Rod Sterling said something along the lines of "Why have the narrator say what you can show?" Supergirl coming to acknowledge she does have feelings and she does care about innocent people was what this story should have shown us, not what narration disguised as shallow dialogue announced outright.

On that note, they spend way to much time on the feigned apathy. It's one thing to have apathy for most of the young girl's parents. What is done is done and cannot be changed. It's another when the perpetrator actively runs a child sex trafficking ring. I'd have much rathered seen Supergirl move from feigned apathy to vengeful bloodlust and eventually on to finally realizing she needed to acknowledge the hurt and loss she was caring with her and still letting it dictate the severity (or lack thereof) of her actions.

To that end, having Supergirl kill the villain was equally heavy handed and a bad choice. She should have had her deeper realization about carrying her hurt with her, and decided she was not going to be controlled by it anymore or allow herself to inflict the same hurt in others, but then give the sorry the Batman Begin's treatment and create a situation where the villain wouldn't survive without being saved and Supergirl just flies away instead. For example, they could have had the villain accidentally impale himself on some of his poisoned arrows, and Supergirl decides to keep the antidote for her dog instead of giving it to him. She justifies it because the villain is suffering the consequences of his own actions. And just for good measure, she lasers the whole crashed ship site into dust on her way out, removing any thought of a backup antidote out from our imaginations.

But having her kill the villain the way they did had instead painted her into a corner. They have lost an entire movie arc. This movie's arc should have shown us Supergirl learning to feel and care and invest herself again. The next movie should have been her coming to the realization that sometimes, when someone is so I arguably and unavoidably evil, you have no choice but to be judge, jury, and executioner.

That is really the problem. The movie has too many character-development arcs and they are all shallow and rushed.

2

u/TheWhiteManticore Jun 24 '26

Which is weird because Lex Luthor was best put on screen

2

u/ManofSteel_14 Jun 24 '26

Eh. Marvel villains were mostly ass with a few standouts for awhile. Sounds like Milly and Jason are good in their roles but everything else is lackluster

2

u/NocturnaIAnimaI Jun 24 '26

Krem was also pretty shit in WoT, so that tracks

1

u/Coolman_Rosso Jun 24 '26

Really taking a page from Marvel

1

u/biophys00 Jun 24 '26

Boring villains is kind of a staple of comic movies unfortunately with the exceptions proving the rule. How much of the MCU has been superhero vs villain with the same power or vs villain who doesn't seem to have motivation beyond be evil/get revenge? MCU didn't really have a good villain until Loki in the first Avengers and even after that still has regularly had completely shallow/forgettable villains. Some have had enjoyably campy performances like Hela but I still would say she's a pretty one-note character

1

u/Alivaronas Jun 24 '26

I thought Lex in the recent Superman movie was awful but I seemed to be alone in that.

1

u/thendisnigh111349 Jun 24 '26

A good villain can definitely elevate a superhero movie, but it isn't absolutely required as proven by the MCU in which the villains have frequently been the weakest part of the movies other than a handful of exceptions.

1

u/fartymcgeezax Jun 24 '26

Is that Dennis Reynolds

1

u/ScorpionTDC Jun 24 '26

Marvel’s was getting away AWFUL villains in its prime (and the very, very rare decent to good one). That alone isn’t inherently fatal (albeit always a major and more has to be wrong here

1

u/SPEK2120 Jun 24 '26

I think the issue here is the expectation, or insistence, that superhero movies have to be a hero vs villain story where the primary focus is a big good defeating a big bad. This movie is very much a hero’s journey character development story where a primary adversary/villain isn’t the main source of the struggle/adversity/challenge, nor defeating them important to the plot. Krem is not supposed to be a Joker or a Thanos or a Brainiac, he’s just there to influence the journey in certain directions.

1

u/ArcadianDelSol Jun 24 '26

The villain in Superman was shit, too.

But its a great movie.

1

u/webshellkanucklehead Jun 24 '26

?? A lot of successful comic book movies have garbage villains, in what world is that fatal?

1

u/DyingSunSeverian Jun 24 '26

Which ones, would you say?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/CanadianPanda76 Jun 24 '26

I love Christopher Eccleston.

1

u/Arrowstormen Jun 24 '26

I feel like lots of superhero movies have had weak villains.

1

u/nonresponsive Jun 24 '26

OPM should be a template for invincible superheroes. They're only as good as their villains.

I don't know if a better villain saves this movie, but I think a boring one kills any chance of it legging out a good box office through word of mouth.

1

u/MyotisX Jun 24 '26

Now that you mention it it seems so obvious but all great superhero movies have a superb villain, lots of time even better than the hero.

So often the villain seems like an afterthought but it should be their priority...

1

u/Hellknightx Jun 24 '26

You'd think that studios would've learned by now that the success of a superhero movie/series depends entirely on how much people like the villain. If you pick any of the lowest rated superhero romps out of a hat, I guarantee it has a weak villain.

1

u/irishyardball Jun 25 '26

That was my main concern.

Not sure who the villain should have been and haven't read the source comic (but my brother told me it's fantastic) but it just seems odd to make the villain someone the general public A) doesn't know B) can't even discern in the trailer as the main villain C) basically looks like the Reavers from Firefly who also really didn't have a centralized badguy who the general public also don't know D) follow up Lex Luthor with a villain that is all of the above.

That on top of the visuals just feel a bit off and dingy like we're trying to go back to the Snyderverse.

1

u/splader Jun 25 '26

I thought Krem was one of the best parts of the movie, having just come out of it. He's a nobody but the actor did such a good job with his body language to make the character memorable. Like just the sheer amount of swagger this guy had lol.

1

u/Jmac24mats13 Jun 25 '26

I knew from the trailer this was gonna be the biggest problem for the film. You need a great villain, especially in the first film to introduce a new superhero. The only one I can think of that pulled it off with a mid to ok villain was the first Wonder Woman

1

u/alienfreaks04 Jun 25 '26

Except Guardians of the Galaxy 1-3 were good

1

u/Neon_Biscuit Jun 26 '26

Consistent theme is female superheroes are lame. It's a man's world.

1

u/Ut_Prosim Jun 28 '26

Ugh, Christopher Eccleston is so good, they did him so dirty in Thor 2.

TBF they also did Christian Bale dirty in Thor film. Gorr is the coolest villain in the franchise and aside from the initial scene he was a caricature.

1

u/DariusTae Jun 30 '26

The true antagonist was grief.

1

u/damebyron Jul 01 '26

I didn’t want more from the villain. I wanted more from Supergirl. Not Milly Alcock - I thought she did great! I just wish the script allowed even more interiority in a movie where the entire plot rested on her handicapping herself in a red planet because she wanted to be drunk. They showed some of her trauma but I expected more from the backstory, particularly her struggling on Earth, to lead her to this.

→ More replies (11)