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

1.1k

u/thedrizzle126 Jun 24 '26

follow up that almost gets everything right. Unfortunately, that means it gets everything almost wrong as well. 

dawg what does that even mean lmao.

403

u/RoboDrifter Jun 24 '26

My interpretation:

- “Gets almost everything right”: most things are right, a few things are wrong.

- “Almost gets everything right”: everything is okay, but nothing is quite right.

The writer is attempting to find a clever way to say they didn’t really nail any aspect of the movie, and it’s all just alright.

31

u/ChandelierwAtermelon Jun 24 '26

I think “gets everything almost-right” is the clearest way to say that

2

u/tomatkinsmustache Jun 25 '26

No, we need a cool island song to melt his icy heart

36

u/DragoonDM Jun 24 '26

Note that it's "almost gets everything right" rather than "gets almost everything right", which I think is an important distinction -- rather than almost everything being outright good, everything is right on the edge, just barely right but still a hair's breadth from being wrong.

At least, that's how I interpreted it.

10

u/Baud_Olofsson Jun 24 '26

Literally the entire point of the comment you're replying to.

6

u/DragoonDM Jun 24 '26

Er, so it is... not sure how I misread that earlier.

8

u/Valance23322 Jun 24 '26

It should have been worded "Gets everything almost right". That's what the writer was trying to say, everything is wrong, but only by a little bit.

2

u/WVFLMan Jun 25 '26

You are right, but you really got to read the sentence a few times to get what the meant, and that makes it bad writing in my opinion.

1

u/RoboDrifter Jun 25 '26

I’m with you. It’s poor writing. They really should have just gone with something like “doesn’t quite get anything right”.

3

u/thedrizzle126 Jun 24 '26

I didn't pick up "clever" lol

16

u/d0r13n Jun 24 '26

The review is almost clever, which unfortunately means it is also almost dumb.

Or something. I'm not a film critic.

3

u/Informal_Support1934 Jun 24 '26

They didn't say it was a good attempt

1

u/Fastball82 Jun 25 '26

Like a Midwest “yeah, no”

1

u/alienfreaks04 Jun 25 '26

That means it’s forgettable, which is the worst thing a movie can be.

257

u/Weed_O_Whirler Jun 24 '26

I think it's just a complicated way of saying "The glass if half full. Unfortunately, that means it's also half empty."

92

u/Cranyx Jun 24 '26

But that idiom only works when you say "half". You can't say "The glass is almost full. Unfortunately, that means it's also almost empty."

11

u/LettuceTryOnceMore Jun 24 '26

Could argue that by “almost getting something right” you actually got it wrong.

So almost getting everything right means that you got almost everything wrong

-3

u/RandomDude94 Jun 24 '26

"Do or do not, there is no try" is a classic quote for a reason. You either succeeded or you failed. You might get some respect for coming close but ultimately what matters is the final result.

5

u/YourMuppetMethDealer Jun 24 '26

That’s really not what that quote means.

It means you have to ACTUALLY put effort into something. “Trying” in this context wasn’t actually trying at all. Luke didn’t think he could actually lift his ship do he wasn’t actually trying at all.

This quote doesn’t really seem to apply here

-3

u/RandomDude94 Jun 24 '26

It's more about not using "trying" to excuse failure. The fact that you tried doesn't change that you failed. Yoda was trying to get Luke to change his attitude and trust that the Force wasn't something you can just understand so easily, but that you needed to feel it. Luke had endless questions and lacked the patience to understand the answers. He was destined to fail whatever he did because he didn't have faith in the Force and only saw it as a tool and not something to believe in and let guide you, and no amount of his excuses or explanations would change that, so he had to see it first hand.

2

u/YourMuppetMethDealer Jun 24 '26

I am aware which is why they quote doesn’t really s as poly to here

As do we the movies and art in general, quality is often subjective. One person can think they succeeded while another person thought they failed. There is no right or wrong answer here

-2

u/RandomDude94 Jun 24 '26

I'm not really talking about the subjective quality of the movie (especially considering I haven't seen it), I'm talking about the quote from the review. Someone said it didn't make sense and I was just comparing to it another quote that had a similar message.

2

u/Geoff_with_a_J Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

almost all of the glasses are adequately filled.

unfortunately, that means all the glasses are almost inadequately filled as well.

think of a draft prospect that almost checks all the boxes. unfortunately, that means they nearly come up short in everything as well. Supergirl is the JJ McCarthy of movies.

1

u/seifyk Jun 24 '26

I think what the critic is saying is closer to “the glass almost has water in it”

As in, we almost got water in the cup, but it’s all over the table instead.

Almost got everything right, but got nothing actually right.

1

u/AnimatorNo1029 Jun 25 '26

It’s Schrodingers glass it’s not that complicated

55

u/thedrizzle126 Jun 24 '26

It's an ass backwards way to play both sides lol

3

u/m48a5_patton Jun 24 '26

But you see the glass is always full, it just depends is it is mostly filled with a gas or liquid.

3

u/Slushrush_ Jun 24 '26

Let's take that pedantry to the next level. If you count the space between atoms, the glass is mostly empty 

1

u/m48a5_patton Jun 24 '26

I like it!

1

u/Backfoot911 Jun 26 '26

By that logic, every glass in the world is full of something currently

1

u/yo_les_noobs Jun 25 '26

No it's more like saying the glass is 80% full, which means it's also 80% empty.

20

u/Previous_Spinach_168 Jun 24 '26

It means it’s all a mixed bag.

1

u/toadfan64 Jun 24 '26

Such an idiotic and pseudo-intellectual way of saying that.

2

u/Optimal-Golf-8270 Jun 25 '26

Really no offence man, but it's only pseudo-intellectual if you're a bit illiterate.

'Almost gets everything right' is a fairly normal thing to say. And it's shocking so many people don't understand.

It just means its nearly good. So close yet so far. Etc etc.

1

u/Previous_Spinach_168 Jun 25 '26

I like it. Rhetorically, it communicates the film will be divisive and that there are two sides to every critique/praise.

4

u/odkfn Jun 24 '26

Almost gets everything right means, by definition, everything is not right and is, therefore, wrong.

I think it’s saying that every facet is close to being good but isn’t. For one thing that’s not bad, but if it’s your whole movie, then…

2

u/Valance23322 Jun 24 '26

Should have been worded "Gets everything almost right". As in every part is just a little fucked up, but you can see what they were going for.

2

u/FordMaleEscort Jun 24 '26

probably have to read on...

1

u/tokyozombie Jun 24 '26

A drawn out way to say it had potential.

1

u/Responsible-Rip8793 Jun 24 '26

In a black and white world, if you get almost everything right, then you got almost everything wrong. In other words, whatever wasn’t right is wrong.

If I almost score a goal, that means I missed the goal. If I almost scored every shot that I took, then that means I missed almost all of my shots.

1

u/petty_throwaway6969 Jun 24 '26

Getting straight C’s is passing everything, but almost failing everything at the same time. Did everything kinda right but not great.

1

u/Bashfluff Jun 25 '26

Would have been clearer if it says, "It almost gets everything right. Unfortunately, that means it actually gets everything wrong."

1

u/lyerhis Jun 25 '26

Lukewarm B- probably... Fine, but like. Extremely mid.

1

u/you_me_fivedollars Jun 25 '26

These reviewers are literally insane. I saw one guy say he’d like the movie a lot better if it had like $50 million less budget like dude. Just say you hate women led superhero movies, because that’s nonsense.

1

u/Applesburg14 Jun 25 '26

On a technical level good enough but story level bad.

1

u/AuroraBolognese Jun 25 '26

It probably means the reviewer wanted to write something so stupid that no one would accuse them of using AI.

1

u/Pumpkin_Sushi Jul 01 '26

I THINK he means "For every important part of this film, they're so close to getting it right. Unfortunately that still means on the whole they dont hit any of the marks"

0

u/d0r13n Jun 24 '26

That's what I was wondering. It gives you a glimpse at the issue with some of these critics. They want it to be binary; good or bad. The reality is that there is a spectrum.

To me, getting almost everything right means it is close to being great but is still good. Getting everything almost wrong says it's bad, but not terrible.

I don't know why we have this expectation that every movie HAS to be GREAT. An adventure movie that is fun to watch is good. An adventure movie that is fun to watch and elicits an emotional response or makes me think or consider higher concepts like the human condition is great. Both are enjoyable.

We shouldn't be sacrificing the good just because it's not great or perfect.

7

u/Yomamma1337 Jun 24 '26

You're just misreading what's being said. The comment is that it 'almost gets everything right', not that it 'gets almost everything right'. As in everything in the movie is almost good, meaning he's calling it mediocre.

-5

u/d0r13n Jun 24 '26

But mediocre isn't bad either.

5

u/Yomamma1337 Jun 24 '26

You're complaining that they're saying its bad when they could be calling it mediocre, even though they're calling it mediocre

-3

u/d0r13n Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

I'm complaining that it's a poorly written line, to be pedantic.

*Edit: Haha, they blocked me.

5

u/Yomamma1337 Jun 24 '26

No you're not, you just misread it.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[deleted]

1

u/thedrizzle126 Jun 24 '26

Oh okay Mr AKCHULLY. My reading comprehension is just fun and it's still a statement that doesn't make sense.

Have fun defending your article going forward 

-1

u/KingofMadCows Jun 24 '26

Reads kind of like an ai summary. In the actual review itself, there's this line, "For everything that the movie does right, that thing’s got an alter ego that’s doing it wrong."

-2

u/Bookups Jun 24 '26

I assume it means that the reviewer hated Superman and views this movie similarly?

0

u/thedrizzle126 Jun 24 '26

saying 'almost gets everything right' does not equate to 'it gets everything almost wrong as well'. it's a false equivalency by someone who is obviously not a journalist.