Only got around to seeing this last night, so I just read this review today. While I agree with your critiques in general, I still enjoyed the film. One difference: I thought the Jason Momoa bits went on too long -- (SPOLIER HERE) not sure why we needed to see him again after the first battle with the brigands on Bilquis.
Note I have never been much of a fan of the Superman IP, precisely for the issues with his (and now Supergirl's) near-invincibility, and the fact that Kryptonians have some kind of new superpower whenever the plot requires it. And I was scratching my head (AGAIN, SPOILER) about the business with a green sun. Never heard of one, and why does green sunlight act like kryptonite?
Overall, I thought it was a fun summer film. Not the best, but better than many. I liked the various worlds we visited, I enjoyed Milly Alcock's performance, and I liked the relatively low stakes -- I have a softness for low stakes comic book films. I also liked that it was a female-led superhero film that didn't feel obligated to make political points. Supergirl could just be an ass-kicking superhero, not a symbol.
My opinion is different. Supergirl is a great story, and Milly Alcock is a superb actress. But everyone has different tastes. I enjoy a good story, and Supergirl is a different good story.
New rule I apply to villains in superhero movies (and perhaps generally, though mostly only applies to sci-fi and comic book flicks): if the character and/or actor cannot even rise to the level of interesting that was Eric Bana as NERO in the '09 STAR TREK reboot, then the screenwriter needs to return to the drawing board. NERO had no real basis in STAR TREK lore or canon, but relished being a bad guy and had a reason to exist.
The SUPER GIRL villains...unclear beyond their general odiousness?
Thinking back to a few standalone properties from MARVEL and even DC where the Nero principle more or less worked:
▪︎ Lex Luthor by Nicholas Hoult in last year's SUPERMAN (a not terribly canonical take on the character either);
▪︎ Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio in SPIDER-MAN FAR FROM HOME;
▪︎ Colin Farrell as the Penguin in THE BATMAN (again not really true to any comic book origin story);
▪︎ Michael Keaton as Vulture in SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING; and
▪︎ Lee Pace as Ronan the Accuser in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY.
These are just a few, and arguably the rule might be just as applicable to the actor. I also am certain I am forgetting some perhaps memorable villain roles by women ... but the Bana/Nero standard feels like a good rule/guideline.
Glad a woke movie wouldn't get a good review here, glad for that. A woman leading? A movie that thinks empathy isn't a weakness or a curse. Glad Sonny is keeping Charlie Kirk's dislike of such things alive.
If a dog is going to be harmed, there’d better be John Wick caliber vengeance and action. That’s the standard. A PG super-hero green screen pew pew fest doesn’t justify that level of emotional manipulation.
Heh. I read that in high school, about ten years after it was published. One of Niven’s classic “let’s follow this to some wild conclusions” exercises.
This is disappointing - I was looking forward to this. But forewarned is forearmed, and if I see it I'll go in with the right expectations. Thanks Sonny.
Only got around to seeing this last night, so I just read this review today. While I agree with your critiques in general, I still enjoyed the film. One difference: I thought the Jason Momoa bits went on too long -- (SPOLIER HERE) not sure why we needed to see him again after the first battle with the brigands on Bilquis.
Note I have never been much of a fan of the Superman IP, precisely for the issues with his (and now Supergirl's) near-invincibility, and the fact that Kryptonians have some kind of new superpower whenever the plot requires it. And I was scratching my head (AGAIN, SPOILER) about the business with a green sun. Never heard of one, and why does green sunlight act like kryptonite?
Overall, I thought it was a fun summer film. Not the best, but better than many. I liked the various worlds we visited, I enjoyed Milly Alcock's performance, and I liked the relatively low stakes -- I have a softness for low stakes comic book films. I also liked that it was a female-led superhero film that didn't feel obligated to make political points. Supergirl could just be an ass-kicking superhero, not a symbol.
My opinion is different. Supergirl is a great story, and Milly Alcock is a superb actress. But everyone has different tastes. I enjoy a good story, and Supergirl is a different good story.
As much as I enjoy Jason Momoa I just might give this a pass.
Word to filmmakers: DON'T KILL/POISON THE DOG
New rule I apply to villains in superhero movies (and perhaps generally, though mostly only applies to sci-fi and comic book flicks): if the character and/or actor cannot even rise to the level of interesting that was Eric Bana as NERO in the '09 STAR TREK reboot, then the screenwriter needs to return to the drawing board. NERO had no real basis in STAR TREK lore or canon, but relished being a bad guy and had a reason to exist.
The SUPER GIRL villains...unclear beyond their general odiousness?
Thinking back to a few standalone properties from MARVEL and even DC where the Nero principle more or less worked:
▪︎ Lex Luthor by Nicholas Hoult in last year's SUPERMAN (a not terribly canonical take on the character either);
▪︎ Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio in SPIDER-MAN FAR FROM HOME;
▪︎ Colin Farrell as the Penguin in THE BATMAN (again not really true to any comic book origin story);
▪︎ Michael Keaton as Vulture in SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING; and
▪︎ Lee Pace as Ronan the Accuser in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY.
These are just a few, and arguably the rule might be just as applicable to the actor. I also am certain I am forgetting some perhaps memorable villain roles by women ... but the Bana/Nero standard feels like a good rule/guideline.
You just need a motivation that makes sense. (The recent Spider-Man films have excelled at that.)
Glad a woke movie wouldn't get a good review here, glad for that. A woman leading? A movie that thinks empathy isn't a weakness or a curse. Glad Sonny is keeping Charlie Kirk's dislike of such things alive.
Hey man: I've given you fair warning before to knock this off. (https://www.thebulwark.com/p/america-is-bleeding-film-and-tv-jobs-incentives-california-congress/comment/238604069) Last chance. Three strikes and you're out.
If a dog is going to be harmed, there’d better be John Wick caliber vengeance and action. That’s the standard. A PG super-hero green screen pew pew fest doesn’t justify that level of emotional manipulation.
If you think YOU have questions about Kryptonian biology, I point you to "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex", a 1971 essay by science fiction writer Larry Niven about Superman's (ahem) social life. https://larryniven.net/?q=man-of-steel-woman-of-kleenex-by-larry-niven
Heh. I read that in high school, about ten years after it was published. One of Niven’s classic “let’s follow this to some wild conclusions” exercises.
I feel like this ground was also covered in Kevin Smith's MALLRATS?
Oh. My. God.
This is disappointing - I was looking forward to this. But forewarned is forearmed, and if I see it I'll go in with the right expectations. Thanks Sonny.
The use of sexual violence against girls seems like a particularly boring and disgusting way to up the stakes. Hard pass.
Sonny you are a treasure. I’m glad the Bulwark keeps the culture section going. Fun review. I’ll skip this one (as I skip all the super hero shows).
So reading between the lines you didn't like it much. 🤣
I've had better times at the theater!