Supergirl review: Milly Alcock, not Superman, should be face of DCU

Just a year after James Gunn’s Superman kicked off the DCU, the Milly Alcock-led Supergirl is flying into movie theaters, and it finally shows the promise of the rebooted cinematic universe.

Unless you’re a fan of the forgotten 1984 Supergirl movie or The CW’s Arrowverse, the DCU’s take on the character is the first real swing at bringing her to the big screen. Sasha Calle’s iteration from The Flash had its moments, but Alcock was made for this role.

That means that, unlike Superman, Supergirl is a breath of fresh air in the superhero genre. Former Cruella and Dumb Money director Craig Gillespie retains some of the signature Gunn-isms, like the well-placed needle drops and camera movement in the action scenes, but it’s Ana Nogueira’s surprisingly heartfelt and sensitive script that gives the movie life.

The DCU now has a new face, and, hopefully, Supergirl doesn’t receive the same treatment as Superman in the DCEU, who was relegated to side-character status after Man of Steel.

Supergirl review

Supergirl borrows from revenge movies like Kill Bill and dystopian sci-fi flicks like Mad Max: Fury Road. The similarities are hard to ignore, but there’s a superhero spin on it.

Kara Zor-El (Milly Alcock) has turned 23, and she embarks on a bender off of Earth where her cousin, Kal-El/Superman (David Corenswet), wishes she’d return.

Elsewhere, a young girl, Ruthye Marye Knoll (Eve Ridley), has her parents killed by Krem of the Yellow Hills (Matthias Schoenaerts), the leader of the Brigands.

She seeks revenge, and that leads her to ask for the help of Kara to achieve it. However, Kara is reluctant to help until Krem wrongs her.

The differences between Supergirl and Superman

One thing is for sure: Supergirl is the complete juxtaposition to Superman. While they are both “good,” they are intangibly very different.

The DCU has tried to show the flaws of its characters. They did that with Superman, but it’s hard to effectively do it with a character who’s intrinsically good.

Kara, meanwhile, is flawed. She is an alcoholic and doesn’t do things with the best motives (something we learn more about later in the movie).

It’s still hard to relate to the character, given her superpowers, but there’s something painfully relatable and human about her. Alcock deserves a lot of credit for bringing humanity to the role.

The other cast members

Her dynamic with Ridley’s Ruthye is also rich. It’s an example of allies of convenience, but Ridley, who is just 14 years old, holds her own against the likes of Alcock and Jason Momoa.

In case you’ve forgotten, Momoa is back in DC, this time as Lobo. The character better suits him, since Lobo has an edge. It allows an intensity that Aquaman never had. Thankfully, he’s not cracking headache-inducing one-liners as he did in the DCEU.

And, yes, of course, Krypto the dog is adorable. His role isn’t as prominent as in Superman, but he makes the most of his scenes. It’s hard not to be a sucker for adorable dogs, especially in the case of crypto.

The rich world of the movie

One of the DCU’s strengths, two movies in, is the world it has created. Supergirl explores different planets, pitting the titular hero in a variety of environments instead of Earth.

Gillespie and the crew did a great job filling in the various worlds they set foot in. One of them, for example, is appropriately grimy and dark. It’s dystopian like Coruscant at night.

This makes Supergirl a lot more engaging for viewers. There are some moments of shoddy CGI (though not nearly as bad as The Flash or some of the MCU’s worst), including a planet infused with Kryptonite that literally just has a green filter over it, but at least Supergirl has a distinct visual language.

Gillespie has made dramas like Million Dollar Arm, I, Tonya, and Dumb Money, but his work in Cruella better translates to his work in the DCU.

Though never overstepping, he brings a flair behind the camera, particularly in the action. The story, written by Nogueira, doesn’t rewrite the genre norms, but it gets from point A to point B.

Supergirl is an introduction to the character for most viewers. Luckily, it doesn’t get bogged down in the typical origin stories (though it does utilize flashbacks to give some background). It’s the same technique that worked in Spider-Man: Homecoming, beginning with a somewhat established hero.

The villain, Krem, is also a fairly low-stakes antagonist. However, he is the perfect match for Supergirl in her first movie. The motivations are simple, and they allow viewers to focus on the characters and rally behind Kara as she becomes a real hero. Give Schoenaerts credit. A former Oscar nominee, it’s a treat to see such a prestigious actor let loose with this over-the-top villain.

Should you watch Supergirl?

Look, no one expects Supergirl to reinvent the superhero genre, and it doesn’t. However, it can’t fail to deliver what it never promised. As it is, Supergirl is a really fun time and a positive step in the right direction for the DCU.

It’s also one of the most well-crafted superhero flicks since Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy, and not just because of the needle drops. The sets are immersive, and the action packs a punch.

Alcock is a dynamic performer, as she previously showed in House of the Dragon. She’s not alone, though, as the entire ensemble, from Ridley to Momoa, gives great performances.

Surely, the future is bright in the DCU for the character. If everything goes well, she should become the leading face of the franchise. No offense to Corenswet, who is a good Superman, but Alcock brings an edge that the DCU desperately needs.

Finally, superhero movies might be good (and fun) again.

Grade: B

Supergirl will be released on June 26.

The post Supergirl review: Milly Alcock, not Superman, should be face of DCU appeared first on ClutchPoints.