Supergirl is flying into theaters with mixed critical reception, a softening box-office forecast, and one clear point of agreement: Milly Alcock has made Kara Zor-El worth watching.
Directed by Craig Gillespie and written by Ana Nogueira, the DC Studios film stars Alcock as Kara Zor-El, Superman’s younger cousin, in a cosmic revenge story that sends the heroine across the galaxy with Ruthye Marye Knoll, played by Eve Ridley. Their mission puts them on a collision course with Krem of the Yellow Hills, played by Matthias Schoenaerts, while Jason Momoa enters the new DC Universe as Lobo.
The movie arrives as the second big-screen chapter in the new DCU and a test of whether audiences will follow a character who is not Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman. So far, critics are split.
As of this writing, Supergirl holds a 62 percent Tomatometer score on Rotten Tomatoes from 74 reviews, with no verified Popcornmeter score yet. That places the film just inside “fresh” territory, but far from the kind of critical launch DC Studios likely would have wanted for its first post-Superman expansion.
Variety’s Owen Gleiberman landed on the harsh end of the spectrum, calling the film “Super-Horrendous” and criticizing it as a flat, noisy superhero movie driven by thin motivations. For Gleiberman, the movie’s plot comes down to killing Krem and saving the dog, with plenty of action but little dramatic charge.
David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter was also disappointed, especially given Gillespie’s history with films about spirited, rule-breaking women such as I, Tonya and Cruella. Rooney argued that the film fails to find emotional depth in the bond between Kara and Ruthye, a notable weakness for a story built around trauma, vengeance and chosen sisterhood.
Tomris Laffly of RogerEbert.com was similarly unmoved, writing that the emotions of the characters do not land with enough force. Alison Willmore of New York Magazine/Vulture praised Alcock as a watchable lead, but called the movie “aggressively minor” and argued that it does not know what to do with either the actress or the character.
Kevin Maher of The Times put it bluntly: Alcock plays Kara with swaggering charm and goofy energy, but she is “a character in need of a better film.” Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph was even more dismissive, calling the film an “orangey-grey rehash” of Mad Max and Star Wars, while suggesting the movie never makes a strong case for why audiences should care.
Several critics echoed that concern. Carlos Aguilar of The Playlist wrote that Kara has an appealing Tony Stark quality, more reckless and self-destructive than cleanly heroic, but argued that the story and structure cannot sustain what is interesting about her. Clarisse Loughrey of The Independent felt the film was trying too hard to stay inside James Gunn’s tonal universe, leaving Superman’s moodier, more cynical relative without enough of her own voice. Nick Schager of The Daily Beast called it a less-than-super spinoff, while Matt Singer of ScreenCrush labeled it a DC disappointment.
Jeff York of The Establishing Shot was also strongly negative. In his review, titled “Supergirl Looks Super But Is a Slog,” York argues that the film is visually polished but emotionally heavy, derivative and surprisingly joyless.
He criticizes the darker treatment of Kara, the repeated punishment she absorbs, and the movie’s echoes of Star Wars, Mad Max and Guardians of the Galaxy. For York, Alcock is decent but not exceptional, and the film’s attempt to make Kara a surly antihero leaves the character less inspiring than exhausting.
But the reaction is not all bad.
Zaki Hasan of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film a Fresh review, writing that Alcock’s Supergirl has to grow into the hero she is destined to become. By the time the credits roll, Hasan argues, it is her performance, not the oversized spectacle around her, that leaves the strongest impression.
Jake Coyle of the Associated Press was also mixed positive, saying the latest DC release has its moments, even if it struggles to match Kara’s punk rock energy with an equally spirited supporting cast and story. That has become one of the film’s central critical themes: Alcock brings the spark, but the movie does not always know how to carry it.
Brian Truitt of USA Today was more enthusiastic, calling the film an intergalactic revenge story that freshens familiar superhero tropes through a jaded, self-destructive protagonist who still has a lot to figure out. Linda Marric of HeyUGuys praised the film’s temperament, calling it rougher and less assured than Superman, but also more willing to let its protagonist be wrong.
Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian also gave Supergirl a Fresh review, calling it a sprightly and sparkling superhero yarn that benefits from avoiding the usual tangled DC backstory. He concluded that while the film is not perfect, there are moments when audiences may believe the franchise can fly.
Kate Erbland of IndieWire responded to the film’s smaller, stranger ambitions, writing that what makes Supergirl stand out is its interest in staying small while asking larger questions. Liz Shannon Miller of Consequence also leaned positive, noting that when the film takes big risks, those risks tend to pay off, even if there are not enough of them.
Other critics landed in the middle. Tim Grierson of Screen International called it a likable but underwhelming sci-fi adventure that only occasionally presents its protagonist in her best light, while still crediting Alcock with the chops and gravity for the role.
Anna Stafford of Little White Lies said the film rarely rises above the genre’s limitations, but has enough character to avoid sinking into mediocrity. Richard Whittaker of the Austin Chronicle praised Alcock and the film’s rougher edge, calling it a fine addition to the new legion of superheroes.
The box office conversation may be just as important as the reviews.
Deadline initially reported that Supergirl was tracking for a $55 million-plus domestic opening. More recent projections have softened. ComicBookMovie reported that tracking had declined again, citing an expected $51 million domestic debut, while noting that earlier predictions had placed the film between $47 million and $60 million. The same report said the film carries a reported $175 million production budget and may need roughly $315 million worldwide to break even.
That puts the pressure on word of mouth. A $50 million-ish opening would not automatically be disastrous, especially if the film holds well and plays internationally. But it would be a modest start for a major DC Studios release following Superman, and it arrives as Toy Story 5 continues to dominate family and four-quadrant attention.
The challenge for the Maiden of Might is that its best asset appears to be its star, not necessarily its story. Alcock gives DC a Kara who is not merely a brighter variation of Clark Kent. She is wounded, reckless, funny, angry, and searching for a way to do good without pretending to be nice. That version of Supergirl has intrigued many critics, even some who did not love the movie.
But several reviewers are asking the same larger question: Does the film give that version of Kara the adventure she deserves?
For DC Studios, the answer may matter beyond this weekend. Supergirl is not just another comic book movie. It is a test of whether the new DCU can build outward from Superman into stranger, riskier, and more character-specific territory. Critics seem open to that ambition. They are just not convinced the execution fully gets there.
The early consensus is simple: Milly Alcock can carry Supergirl.
Now the movie has to prove it can carry her.
The Geek is a working screenwriter, director and screenwriting instructor.
REELated:
“Why is he in his underwear?” First clip from Supergirl
