Supergirl Reviews Highlight Milly Alcock’s Standout Performance as the Film Falls Short

Supergirl, the latest entry in James Gunn’s DC cinematic universe, hits theaters this week. As expected, reviews are rolling in, and they’re not quite as enthusiastic as those for last year’s Superman.

This film, led by Milly Alcock, follows Kara Zor-El, Superman’s cousin, who awakens from an unintended cryo-sleep on Earth. After grappling with the loss of her friends and family, she embarks on a galactic quest to rescue her superpowered dog, Krypto. The stakes are high enough to engage most viewers, and while Alcock’s portrayal of a rough-around-the-edges Kara shines through some of the film’s less exciting moments, the general consensus is that Supergirl feels derivative and messy, lacking the polish that would elevate its lead.

As a fan of James Gunn’s vision for the DCU, I’ve enjoyed what’s been presented so far, and I loved Alcock’s initial appearance as Kara in her cameo in Superman. This version of Supergirl is a blast, and her solo adventure didn’t change my mind. However, this is where Supergirl starts to feel like two different films. For every positive aspect, there’s a counterpart that falls short, resulting in a film that stumbles along without finding a consistent rhythm.

Despite Gunn, who wrote and directed Superman, passing the Supergirl reins to director Craig Gillespie and writer Ana Nogueira, the film seems to strive to maintain a distinctly Gunn-esque vibe. Unfortunately, this approach has muted Supergirl’s unique voice, making her feel more like a Vegas impersonator than a fully realized character.

Overall, Supergirl is a chaotic mix. It feels like a rushed production that could have benefited from stronger characters, more compelling villains, a well-developed script, and a touch of authenticity in its visuals. While it doesn’t need to be compared to Superman—since they aim for different tones and themes—it’s hard not to remember how vibrant and well-crafted that film was when assessing this spinoff. Supergirl could have been much worse; Alcock’s performance ensures it isn’t, but it certainly deserves to be better.

The film arrives in theaters carrying significant baggage. Alongside the usual scrutiny from the culture wars that often target female-led superhero films, it also has to prove that the DCU can be a viable franchise. Unfortunately, despite promises of a director-driven, character-first approach, Supergirl suffers from the same blandness that has plagued many mediocre superhero films. It’s watchable, but the unrealized potential, especially given Alcock’s fantastic performance and the beloved source material, is what stings the most.

Beneath the surface, the film is filled with familiar beats, franchise obligations, and CGI-heavy set pieces. Supergirl rarely transcends the genre’s limitations, but it has enough character to avoid complete mediocrity. Gillespie brings a certain flair reminiscent of Cruella, opting for a grunge aesthetic over the typical superhero gloss. While it may not be groundbreaking, it offers a rough-and-tumble adventure with heart.

A lack of focus, insufficient Krypto, and a one-dimensional villain in Mattias Schoenaerts’ Krem don’t help Supergirl, but they don’t completely derail the film’s quirky vibe. With David Corenswet making brief appearances, he continues to establish himself as a solid Superman, but it’s Alcock who truly makes a statement: she’s here to stay, and the new DCU is better off with a bold Supergirl in the mix.

While last year’s Superman felt like a refreshing take that embraced its character’s uniqueness, Supergirl comes off as another anonymous, effects-heavy blockbuster that struggles to attract audiences, much like The Flash and Black Adam. The character’s distinctiveness gets dulled down, and director Craig Gillespie seems to echo more successful blockbusters rather than crafting a unique narrative for the Woman of Tomorrow.

The film is packed with action, destruction, chases, and explosions, but at its core is the developing relationship between Zor-El and Ruthye, which some have likened to Rooster Cogburn and Mattie Ross in True Grit. However, Alcock doesn’t quite channel John Wayne or Jeff Bridges, and Eve Ridley lacks the spunk of Kim Darby and Hailee Steinfeld.

It might perform well at the box office and thankfully doesn’t require extensive background knowledge to follow. However, that doesn’t excuse the noisy and uninspired nature of the film, which relies on mediocre action sequences, flat humor, and a collection of bizarre intergalactic characters.

Supergirl only truly comes alive when it revisits her painful past. Given Gillespie’s track record with spirited, rule-breaking women in films like I, Tonya and Cruella, the lack of emotional depth in the sisterhood of Kara and Ruthye is particularly disappointing.

Fortunately, with a brisk runtime of 1 hour and 48 minutes, the film moves quickly enough that the rough patches are behind you before you can dwell on them. Supergirl is a unique character with her own vibe, and when the film fully embraces that, it truly shines.

Supergirl is set to hit theaters on June 26, but it’s not the only DC film making its way to the big screen in 2026. Clayface, a body horror film featuring the titular Batman villain, is scheduled for release on October 23, testing the DCU’s ability to showcase different characters across various genres and tones. The next Superman film, Man of Tomorrow, is slated for 2027.