// KOTAKU — GAMING
Supergirl Reviews Say The Movie Can’t Match Milly Alcock’s Excellent Performance
Supergirl, the second movie in James Gunn’s DC cinematic universe, is out this week. As you’d expect, reviews are now flowing from outlets and they’re…well, not as glowing as those for last year’s Superman, that’s for sure.
The Milly Alcock-led superhero film follows Superman’s cousin Kara Zor-El who, after having awoken from her unintended cryo sleep on Earth and dealing with all the grief of having lost her friends and family, ends up on a galactic revenge tour in order to save her superpowered doggie Krypto. Those stakes are enough to get most viewers invested, and reviewers say Alcock’s portrayal of a rough-around-the-edges Kara shines through the duller parts of the film, but the broad sentiment seems to be that Supergirl is derivative and messy, and not in a way that compliments its lead.
Where the DCU is concerned, I’m here for James Gunn’s universe. I’ve liked what’s gone into it so far and I loved Milly Alcock’s first appearance as Kara in her cameo in Superman. I think this version of Supergirl is a blast and her solo outing didn’t do anything to change my mind on that front. But this is also where Supergirl starts to become a tale of two movies. For everything that the movie does right, that thing’s got an alter ego that’s doing it wrong. As a result, the movie is this shuffling, few-steps-forward, few-steps-back kind of slog that never really finds a rhythm.
Despite DC’s co-chair James Gunn – writer and director of Superman – handing the Supergirl reins to director Craig Gillespie and writer Ana Nogueira, the mandate here appears to be to keep things as distinctly Gunn-esque as possible. In return, Superman’s moodier, more cynical relative has been robbed of the chance to speak with her own voice. It’s the superhero equivalent of a Vegas impersonator.
Supergirl is altogether a mess. It feels like a rushed production whose strong characters could have carried a better film with equally interesting villains, a better-developed script, and any amount of authenticity in its visuals. Supergirl doesn’t need comparisons to Superman; they’re different kinds of movies attempting to do different things with their characters and action, but it’s impossible not to recall how beautifully colorful and well-scored that movie was, and how well developed all of the characters were, when judging how this spinoff and second building block in a supposed cinematic universe fares. Supergirl could be much worse; Milly Alcock single-handedly ensures that it isn’t, but it deserves to be much better, too.
The once-logical next step after Superman is now arriving in theaters with heavy baggage. Along with the usual scrutiny from the misogynistic culture war that almost every female-led comic book film has attracted, this also bears the burden of proving to audiences that the DCU is a viable franchise. Unfortunately, despite Gunn and Safran’s promise of a director-driven, character-first approach (in opposition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s “house style”), Supergirl suffers from the same blandness that has plagued so many middle-of-the-road superhero movies. It may be watchable, but between a fantastic leading performance from Milly Alcock (House of the Dragon, Netflix’s Sirens) and the beloved source material, the unrealized greatness is what hurts this DC adaptation the most.
Beneath the grime and personality lurk the usual familiar beats, franchise obligations and CGI-laden set pieces. Supergirl rarely rises above the genre’s limitations, but it has enough character to avoid sinking into mediocrity. Gillespie brings the same swagger that ruled Cruella (2021), embracing grunge over superhero slickness. The film won’t blow your mind, but it is a rough-around-the-edges adventure with heart.
A lack of focus, not nearly enough Krypto and a one-note baddie in [Mattias] Schoenaerts’ Krem don’t do Supergirl any favors, but they also don’t derail the film’s overall vibe of spunky weirdness. With [Superman actor David] Corenswet’s handfu