So ahead of seeing the new Supergirl movie, I believed I was in bit of a quandary. As you may have noticed, the film had already attracted some negative chatter, primarily from The Usual Suspects. You know, the folks that regularly dogpile upon any superhero-or-related-genre mass media that focuses on a character or characters that aren’t straight, while males. Or, to borrow phrasing from my review of the 2025 Superman movie, “the usual parade of grifters out for your attention and your wallet” griping about things being “WOKE,” whatever they think that means.
As the movie appears to have, shall we say, faltered at the box office, it’s those very folks out in force right now crowing about some imagined “victory” in the culture war they’re fighting in their heads. And, going back to that quandary I mentioned, it puts someone like me, Just Some Dude on the Internet, in the position of fearing to critique the movie and being lumped in with Those Folks. (AKA “The Last Jedi Syndrome.”)
Prior to seeing the movie, I had heard some real, actual critique of the movie from people who are presumably Not Insane, ranging from a simple “I liked it!” to actual concerns about the film’s structure/direction/scripting, etc. Nearly all noted that Milly Alcock, the titular Supergirl, was excellent, regardless of their opinion of the project in its entirety. As such, I had those thoughts with me as I entered the theater that evening.
And…I liked it!
Alcock does a wonderful job giving us a troubled Supergirl, submerging her trauma and her (literal) alienation in partying and alcohol, and her struggle to emerge from that emotional burden. I know, I know, that sounds like a bummer, but it really isn’t. Alcock is absolutely a riveting presence onscreen, and you can’t help but feel sympathy for her character.
There is a layer of melancholy laid over the story, regarding Supergirl’s personal history and flashbacks to her life on Argo City (which survied the destruction of Krypton). But there is a sense of fun, too, as we’re given some exciting action set pieces, especially when Supergirl lets loose at full power (which she isn’t always at, due to story demands). Jason Momoa as Lobo is an entertaining addition to the proceedings as well, and is involved far more than I was led to believe, since a number of people said he had no more than a cameo. Oh, no, he’s in there quite a bit.
I thought the storyline was clear and straightforward, and plot points like the color of various suns and their effects on Supergirl as they travel from star system to star system were handled well. The action scenes were clearly directed, which is a typical complaint I have about these sorts of movies, but here I could tell who was doing what and where. And overall, the pacing was good and the story kept my interest from beginning to end.
If I had any quibbles, it would be maybe not having a major established villain at the core…forgive me, but I didn’t read the Tom King/Bilquis Evely Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow mini that apparently provied some inspiration for the film, so I don’t know if the bad guys are a transplant from that story. But on the other hand, a departure from formula probably didn’t hurt (or maybe it did, given the film’s performance, but more on that in a moment). I mean, it’s true enough that the Supergirl Rogues Gallery isn’t exactly overflowing with villains distinct from Superman’s own enemies (I mean, Lesla-Lar, sure, but I don’t think I would have wanted a “me, but evil” adversary. Again.)
The other qualm I have is (and here we enter some SPOILER territory, which I’ve tried to avoid so far, but really can’t for this point) how the main bad guy is ultimately…dealt with by Supergirl. I get this establishes her as a different person with different standards than her cousin Superman, but it seems contrary to the message of “being good” instilled in her by her mother, and brought up several times during the film. But then, her mother also added that “being good” isn’t the same as “being nice,” so that plays into her decision, as well.
I know this could upset the purists, of which I’m usually one, but in this case it makes for a morally complex character, and that could have been further developed in future Supergirl films, of which, it seems, there will be none. Maybe it’ll get touched on in other upcoming DC films, assuming Warner Bros. doesn’t pull the plug on the whole thing.
And why did this film do so poorly right out of the gate? Look, as the internet’s only champion of Frank Miller’s The Spririt, I’m used to having the outlaying opinion on a piece of media, but surely other people thought this movie was good, too. But maybe the tone of the film was a downer to most folks, not the Big, Flashy adventure that people want from their superhero films. Maybe not having that big name villain reduced interest. Maybe it’s just the now-typical “Superhero Fatique,” where audiences already had one Super-movie last year, that was enough for the time being.
Or maybe the Usual Suspects, the ones I mentioned at the beginning of this wall of text, succeeded in poisoning the discourse, convincing John and Jane Q. Public that the Supergirl movie was Bad, Actually. Which, may I say again, that would be wrong — it’s Good, Actually.
But maybe being good isn’t enough (ironic, given the advice from Supergirl’s mom). In this new post-COVID superhero film economic ecosystem, one of these types of films has to be an event. And it has to be something that at least appears new. Last year’s Superman was an event, the beginning of the new DC Cinematic Universe. This year’s Supergirl didn’t reach that perceived status, and, like I said, it came out on top of a another movie that had a hero with a big “S” on the chest. Superman turned into a must-see, Supergirl got the “wait for streaming” treatment.
And I hope the people who avoided it in theaters do discover it on streaming. By that point, it’ll be too late…Supergirl will be dubbed, by every metric important to the studio beancounters, a “failure,” even if everyone who catches it on MAX or whatever other service Warner Bros. sells the film to decides “hey, I like this!”
I say, give it a shot on the big screen. I was glad I did.
Also, Krypto the Superdog is in the film. Surely you want to see more Krypto.
I was listening to a podcast episode (https://shows.acast.com/hkhspod/episodes/labyrinth-1986-feat-jes-battis) talking about the 40th anniversary of Labyrinth and how it more or less bombed when it came out and received (at best) “mixed” reviews. (Gene Siskelsaid it was an “awful” film with a “visually ugly style.”)
Considering that, does anyone think there are any superhero films from 2000 to now that didn’t achieve initial success but will hit “cult” popularity in the next twentyish years?
(I looked through all the lists of “cult” films on Wikipedia and the superhero ones I noticed (there might be some I missed!) were: Catwoman, The Dark Knight, Hellboy II: The Golden Army, Iron Man, Punisher: War Zone, V for Vendetta, Watchmen. It’s hard for me to even think of some of those as “cult.”)
My reaction on seeing it was “It’s nice to see a comic book movie with a simple story that isn’t trying too hard to build a universe.”
But my reaction was also “Boy, that was a simple story, wasn’t it?”
It was perfectly fine, just didn’t have anything, other than Alcock’s performance, to make it stand out.
The Dark Knight?!
If The Dark Knight is a cult film then you might as well call Terminator 2 a cult film too!
‘Cult film’ doesn’t mean ‘a much-loved, enduring, successful film in a genre (some) critics look down on’.
‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ and ‘The Shining’ aren’t cult films; 2004’s ‘Primer’ and 1962’s ‘Carnival of Souls’ are.
I’d argue very strongly that James Gunn’s own ‘Suicide Squad’ deserves to become a cult film.
Did someone mention Primer? Still one of the best sci-fi films I’ve ever seen, along with Coherence, another microbudget sci-fi cult classic. Yes, I know that’s not what we’re talking about.
Would Batman & Robin count as a cult movie? It “underperformed” at the box office, was critically divisive, and has more recently been re-evaluated as a camp masterpiece. But maybe it’s budget was too big to qualify as “cult”?
My friend and I watched a bunch of bad superhero movies a few years ago: Daredevil, Elektra, Catwoman, some of the more recent X-Men movies. Our verdict: just bad, not redeemable enough to be cult.
Can’t watch the big screen. No depth perception. The film should be streaming by Labor Day.
Mike: I did read the trade by King. Aggravated by the scroll and font narrative. We aren’t monks. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the film. If you didn’t know, King had thought about using Lobo in the comic, simply because he would be a familiar space character.
James Gunn: Still waiting on that Ultra, the Multi-Alien film.
Saw Supergirl on opening night with my daughter and some friends. We all really enjoyed it as well. Milly Alcock shines in the lead and Jason Momoa is spot on perfection as Lobo. Just a great, fun summer movie. Then again, I’m a man who appreciates films with strong female roles and am woke AF.
@ Matthew Murray
I definitely think that both Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and John Carter were enjoyable films which deserved sequels.
I haven’t seen the Supergirl film yet, but what I wish Gunn would do is build out the Cosmic DC Universe and give us an Omega Men franchise, a Rann-Thanagar War trilogy, and a New Gods franchise.
I am a huge Super-Family fan, and I adored last year’s Superman film, so I have been excited about this movie for ages. My wife and I went to see it twice in an IMAX theater. I feel like I’m living in Bizarro World as I see all the absolute hate piled on this fantastic, fun movie. Sure, it may not be perfect, but I laughed, cried, punched the air and had a great time. How did all these people who seem to think it is the worst film ever made see the same movie? I understand that tastes may vary, but…
Oliver: I agree! Some of those definitely aren’t cult. I also looked at Wikipedia’s “List of American superhero films” and I do not think it’s possible to find anyone who thinks that list (which includes titles such as “Baywatch: Hawaiian Wedding’ and “Godzilla (2014)”) is useful in any way.
It’s not a superhero movie (despite what that Wikipedia list says), but I think “Dredd” from 2012 is a cult comic book movie.
The ending of the film goes against the ending of the book, and would indicate that the filmmakers missed the entire point of the story.
The book is great, but very episodic. It probably would have worked better as a 6 episode miniseries (combining issues 5-6 and 7-8 into single episodes).
Give the set up in this movie, I wouldn’t put past James Gunn to give us the Omega Men. It’d just slot right into the cosmic universe he’s building here.
Rather liked this movie a lot for pretty much the same reasons you give. It’s much better than the spoiler-free reviews I read led me to believe…
But I wonder if that’s because I too haven’t read the comics that inspired.
The reviews I’ve read from traditional news sources (e.g. The Guardian) have been largely negative because of superhero fatigue, which isn’t a problem I have. So it’s great to get an informed review from someone more attuned to the genre.
I’d have to add that many who weren’t impressed by the film never read the GN.I know a lot of adults who would never read a comic. Bad on them.
I’ve heard this more in the last day alone. Don’t apologize, haters.
I saw it on Saturday – I liked it.
I even liked the ending.
Its not perfect, but then again, what is?
You haven’t read Supergirl, Woman of Tomorrow?
Go, and seek thee thereof.
I was entertained by Supergirl, I thought overall it was a lot better than I’m seeing here and there, and most of the things I liked you mentioned in your review.
But, I do think it was an idiot choice to transform the bad guy from a rogue pirate type in the source material to a cliched refugee from Mad Max. I half expected him to have the Feral Kid tagging along. The actor’s portrayal was awful, with his sub-Peter Stormare inspired Russian/Italian accent. The decision to mess around with the ending wasn’t for the best either, but that’s nothing new.
I hope it’s a slow builder and finds its audience but I’m afraid the damage is done. Seriously, though, read the book.
Regarding Matthew Murray’s “cult” popularity question, again, I think that both Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow, and John Carter deserve to be cult films–and should have received sequels. And I will add that I liked the New Mutants film and could see it reaching cult status eventually.
Regarding The Spirit, I think Frank Miller pretty much missed the mark–outside of fun casting for the female characters, and a few sequences that replicated panels from Will Eisner Spirit comics. But The Spirit didn’t look like The Spirit –he looked like a mash up of The Shadow and Zorro with his dressed all in black (except for a red tie) and sneakers schtick. Everybody know that The Spirit dresses in a blue suit with a white shirt, wears a blue domino mask, and wears dress shoes –at least Miller got the red tie right. And it was ludicrous that The Spirit was spouting gibberish about his city while jumping from rooftops and running along telephone wires like an odd mashup of The Dark Knight, Daredevil, and the Golden Age Airwave. And The Octopus is supposed to be a shadowy, mysterious crime boss whose face is never revealed, so the way over the top cartoon villain film version played by Sam Jackson bore no resemblance to the Will Eisner character. And the Sin City-style cinematography wasn’t helping things. This was not Will Eisner’s The Spirit–this was Frank Miller’s bastardization of The Spirit.
What Miller should have done was studied old Film Noir movies from the 1940s including Lloyd Bacon’s “Brother Orchid,” John Huston’s “The Maltese Falcon,” Howard Hawks’s “The Big Sleep,” John Brahm’s “The Brasher Doubloon,” Frank Tuttle’s “This Gun For Hire,” and Alfred Hitchcock’s “Notorious,” for proper film noir tone and cinematography reference points. And Miller should have stuck with Will Eisner’s aesthetic. Also, Eisner’s Denny Colt doesn’t spout ridiculous purple prose claptrap about his city. Miller should have just been allowed to make a Dark Knight Returns film instead.
I think The Spirit pilot from 1987, written by Steven E. de Souza (who also wrote 48 Hrs., Die Hard, Die Hard 2, The Running Man, Judge Dredd, etc.) and starring Sam J. Jones (of Flash Gordon fame) as The Spirit, Nana Visitor as Ellen Dolan, and Laura M.Robinson as P’Gell came a lot closer to the spirit of Will Eisner’s The Spirit, as seen in the links below.
What would have been really interesting is if William Friedkin’s The Spirit project from the 1970s had been realized. Apparently Harlan Ellison wrote a script, but I don’t know if that script has ever been published or not.
https://youtu.be/f7xJqEWdxd8?is=5WxbKCgNU7zs4-MO
https://youtu.be/54HLk2DK9MM?is=LLAU0SqdDJYHIaW
https://youtu.be/VZEzfi-0tqk?is=bFIT6f-9jTeSoUvo
https://youtu.be/LPTrgwdJPRo?is=WfLzNaLoHZUVpse7
https://youtu.be/f7xJqEWdxd8?is=5WxbKCgNU7zs4-MO
Sean – if you put too many links into a comment, it’ll get held for moderation. I manually approved this post, but you might want to take care with that in the future.
@ Mike
Sorry for putting too many links with the comment, I was just trying to include some good examples from the 1987 The Spirit pilot.
And I apologize if what I wrote came across poorly, as I realize you (and no doubt many others) are a fan of Frank Miller’s The Spirit film.
I watched a few clips the other day of the making off The Spirit, and I could see that Miller seemed to be genuinely enjoying himself as a director and having fun with the project.
And I wasn’t trying to sound like I was knocking Sam Jackson’s acting–as he does great as an over the top cartoon-type villain there.
But I honestly think that Frank Miller wrote a bad script, which, again, was a disservice to Will Eisner’s The Spirit.
Imagine if the Harlan Ellison treatment could be used– and the Coen Brothers directed it; with Ethan Peck as Denny Colt/The Spirit (he actually looks right for the part), and Jack Nicholson as The Octopus–a crime boss kingpin whose face we never see; just his purple-gloved hands. That’s the type of The Spirit movie that I think could be more in the spirit of Will Eisner’s The Spirit.
Or, if they wanted to change it up with classic The Spirit villains they could cast Crispin Glover as Mr. Carrion, or Tim Roth as Dr. Cobra for a retelling of The Spirit’s origin story.
I had no idea THIS many people actually WATCHED “The Spirit”.
Yeah, the whole “afraid to critique it because of the culture war baggage” thing is so real. Sounds like Milly Alcock at least carried the movie though, which counts for something.
I totally get the quandary about pre-judging the movie based on the usual noise. It’s refreshing to see someone go in with an open mind and judge it on its own merits. Speaking of exploring stories with an open mind, I’ve been enjoying onlinehomeiswhereheis for its interactive take on character-driven narratives. It’s a nice way to engage with a story beyond just watching.