Supergirl Isn’t good. But would it have been as reviled a decade ago?
Supergirl, DC’s second installment in their new James Gunn universe, is bombing at the box office. Hard. Not like oh people didn’t like it and we might only break even, like we are going to lose a shit ton of money on this and the direction of our movie universe is in jeopardy. The movie is really not fantastic. It’s got a lazy-ass script, uneven tones, and even unevener (that a word? Not a word?) acting. It’s almost formulaic enough to make you wonder whether the screenwriter has a body or just exists as a machine somewhere, banging out slop. But is the movie as poor as people are saying? I would argue no; it’s just coming at a time when we’re ready to pounce on this sort of product.
Milly Alcock has really taken some shit for this performance, both because internet trolls think she’s not hot enough (okay buddy), and because critics really have a problem with the sarcastic, almost nihilistic way she plays the character. One, to the trolls: mirror, bro, mirror. Two, the performance itself is somewhat filled with good acting, not filled all the way up, maybe, but filled enough. I liked her in the film! I thought she brought a nice mix of comic chops and enough serious dramatic acting to make it work. Should it be getting her heaps of praise? Maybe not. Worth shitting on? No! She’s good in the movie, and I challenge anyone to watch Gal Gadot in the first WW, a film that was beloved at the time and maybe even now. Her acting was never questioned at the time, because the moving parts around her were more functional. Here, not so much.
An easy comparison to make is Guardians of the Galaxy, because of the obvious Gunn influence, a needle drop for every fight scene (like, EVERY fight scene), and the constant quipping. Those films worked better, no doubt, but on a similar wave. Those films even had a similar odd mix of character tones and misfit-toys type of deal that this has, so why is this going in most people’s toilets? One, this film is worse. But two, timing! Supergirl isn’t new, groundbreaking, or even creative like those were, because we’ve seen it too many times. Invention in movies must keep innovating, not stop when you think you’ve found the cash button. Audiences are too smart, and new becomes old faster than executives and production schedules can manage. This is a byproduct of that. Plus, 170 million dollars? You could’ve given 200 up-and-comers Obsession money with that. Not cool.
This film won’t ruin DC, or Milly Alcock. It may not be the best piece on a resume for director Craig Gillespie, though it won’t sink him either, in all likelihood. But it will be a reminder to Warner Bros to stay ahead of the curve, and maybe the curve isn’t superhero movies like this. Maybe it isn’t superhero movies at all. However, if you read anything about this movie, you’d think it wasn’t fun. It is, kinda. Shut your brain off and watch some decently cool visuals and some decently cool action and accept that they dont care about developing the villain for literally even one second and that Lobo is here for no fucking reason whatsoever and that the female-lead-superhero-movie is directed by a man and oh by the way our female hero is going to get laughably saved in her lowest moment by a dude and also by the sun. She’s gonna get saved fucking twice by the sun. This is the same chick who would turn Captain America or Aquaman into swiss fucking cheese. The SUN. Saves her twice. Anyway, enough. This is still okay, not a terrible experience, just stop fucking making them for the GDP of a small country.
