THE STORY – 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.
THE CAST – Milly Alcock, Matthias Schoenaerts, Eve Ridley, David Krumholtz, Emily Beecham, David Corenswet & Jason Momoa
THE TEAM – Craig Gillespie (Director) & Ana Nogueira (Writer)
THE RUNNING TIME – 108 Minutes
In 1984, the Christopher Reeve-led “Superman” franchise received its first spin-off with “Supergirl,” starring Helen Slater and a wildly overqualified supporting cast that included Faye Dunaway, Mia Farrow, and Peter O’Toole. A huge flop at the time, it’s largely been forgotten by the general public. Anecdotally, its total lack of an impression on the pop culture landscape is clear from the conversations I’ve had about the latest “Supergirl” film, this one a spin-off of last year’s hit “Superman” revival starring David Corenswet. Most people clearly don’t even know that a “Supergirl” has already been made. Even my more subversively-minded acquaintances aren’t aware of the camp value to be found in it. And although it’s decidedly not a high-quality film, it’s at least enjoyable in a way that was totally unintended by those who made it. The same cannot be said of 2026’s “Supergirl,” which feels destined to have about as much of a lasting legacy as the 80s version. The newest “Supergirl,” half-heartedly directed by Craig Gillespie, wastes the star quality of its lead actress, Milly Alcock, by surrounding her with ugly visuals and uninvested performances that make her efforts feel rudely unappreciated.
Alcock’s Supergirl, or Kara Zor-El, was first introduced in 2025’s “Superman” in a brief but immediately attention-grabbing cameo. A total contrast to her cousin, Corenswet’s aggressively affable Superman, Alcock’s Kara was shown to be loose, profane, and a straight-up drunk. “Supergirl” kicks off with a montage that doubles down on this characterization, as we follow Kara across her partying adventures on planets with red suns (as opposed to yellow sun planets like our Earth, where her superheroic powers are at their strongest, she can get intoxicated under the glow of red suns). And who could blame her for going hard? It’s her birthday! Oh, and also, there’s the fact that her home planet, Krypton, and all her loved ones were destroyed. Unlike her cousin, who was blasted off of Krypton as a baby, Kara was a fully functioning teenager when she said goodbye to everyone and everything she’s ever known. If ever anyone had a reason to party until the red sun rises, it’s Kara.
But, as all superheroes eventually learn, anyone gifted like Kara has to come to terms with the responsibilities that come with such powers. In the fictional worlds they occupy, there are only two paths for those with abilities above the natural ones that humans have: become an altruistic force for good or an egocentric purveyor of evil. And while evil comes in many forms, to be good inevitably requires putting aside self-centered urges, such as Kara’s initial impulse to ignore the young girl seeking aid who comes into a bar where Kara finds herself stifled under the oppressive capabilities of drink. Her name is Ruthye (Eve Ridley), and she seeks assistance with her mission to avenge her slain family, who were murdered by the vicious space ravager Krem (Matthias Schoenaerts). Although she’s instinctively resistant to help, Kara eventually teams up with Ruthye and sets out to find Krem, with the newly-formed pair running into their fair share of ill-intentioned space folk as they delve deeper into the galactic underworld.
Unlike “Superman,” which focuses on the Kryptonian hero as he defends Earth, “Supergirl” takes place entirely in the cosmos. Kara and Ruthye encounter a wide array of inhuman and vaguely humanoid beings, and the designs of these fantastical species are absolutely the most creative elements of the film. Although the menagerie-like assortment of creatures, each with its own language and behavioral traits, immediately calls to mind the universe of “Star Wars,” “Supergirl” manages to invent an impressively varied range of sci-fi life forms. Many of them seem to be drawn from the aquatic organisms of Earth, while others are such varying degrees of blobby, spindly, and wrinkly that they can’t easily be compared to anything terrestrial. Anyone disappointed by the standard alien designs of “Disclosure Day” will be delighted. And the actual construction of these creatures is equally refreshing, with many brought to life through practical puppets and costumes (with some CGI embellishments, especially on the faces). They’re undoubtedly the greatest contributing factor in transporting the audience off our home planet and into the reaches of space. Similarly, many of the flesh-and-blood actors are adorned with stunning makeup and hair effects, such as Schoenaerts’ gnarly-looking Crem. The typically handsome Belgian actor is covered in what looks like small silver ball bearings, not to mention a ratty-looking ponytail, nasty teeth, and frightening eye contacts; he’s completely unrecognizable.
While the designers who brought the non-human characters to life clearly worked hard, their efforts are undermined by the way they’re captured by the camera. “Supergirl” suffers from the same lighting issues that plague so many contemporary Hollywood films; namely, there aren’t enough lights. Or rather, they’re pointed and positioned in the wrong spots. Much of the film is impenetrably dark – even moments that should feel monumental, like Crem’s entrance, are hard to discern (of course, this darkness may simply be a way to make the visual effects easier to composite, but the CGI is poorly rendered throughout, regardless). This miscalculated visual choice isn’t helped by the excessive backlighting and lens flare, which obscure the image and misdirect viewers’ focus. At times, watching “Supergirl” feels like driving at night and trying not to crash while a vehicle with obnoxiously bright headlights barrels toward you.
But even if the film were shot and lit better, Gillespie’s uninspired, unfocused direction would’ve still weighed down “Supergirl.” In many moments, the camera simply feels like it’s in the wrong place. Sight gags and important bits of non-verbal information are easily missed because Gillespie seems uncertain of how to guide the audience’s attention. For instance, in one scene, Kara uses her laser-beam eyes to try to extract information from an enemy, chopping off a bit of their hair in the process. But the scene is so poorly lit and the lensing so off that the uninvited haircut isn’t even apparent until Kara makes a sarcastic remark about balancing out the hairdo. Moments like this abound, making the film feel muddled and oddly unclear. And the film doesn’t have a humorous enough script to afford to sacrifice visual jokes like this. Ana Nogueira’s screenplay is plainly unfunny, although it certainly tries to capture the type of quippy, sardonic energy that the MCU did better over a decade ago with “Guardians of the Galaxy” (and with that film’s director, James Gunn, serving as the leader of DC’s film branch, “Supergirl” was almost certainly intentionally modeled in the vein of “Guardians of the Galaxy”).
One area in which “Supergirl” successfully apes “Guardians of the Galaxy” is in the star-making work of its lead performer. Milly Alcock was perhaps best known for playing the younger version of Rhaenyra Targaryen on “House of the Dragon” before being cast as Kara, but with “Supergirl,” she’s crafted a trademark character that will likely – and deservedly – follow her for the rest of her career. Despite being first introduced to viewers as, frankly, a mess, her Kara is charming from the outset, calling to mind similarly attention-grabbing performances by unkempt characters like Jack Sparrow in “Pirates of the Caribbean.” Although she’s a party girl on the surface, Alcock’s fully-dimensional creation makes it clear that something is hiding under her carefree exterior. It’s the kind of strenuous work that gives her character more depth than the simplistic screenplay offers; Alcock brings a much-needed humanistic quality to the film. Frustratingly, Kara spends seemingly most of the film weakened and powerless, whether by her own free will or not, but Alcock finds ways to keep her at times anti-heroic character compelling.
Schoenaerts makes for an intimidating bad guy, though his physical appearance does more to make him feel threatening than his dialogue. He simply doesn’t make for a riveting enough antagonist to be counted among the great comic book villains. Jason Momoa also shows up (apparently, he hasn’t had enough of DC after playing Aquaman across four films) in the role of Lobo, a ruthless bounty hunter. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that Momoa’s performance is, like so much else in the film, cynical and grimly comedic (although, again, it’s not like he’s actually successfully funny). It feels like a character that Momoa could’ve played in his sleep, and he’s not enjoyable or impactful enough in what’s clearly intended to be a memorable, scene-stealing role.
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.
