If you have followed my site, or podcast, or any of my reviews you have probably noticed I am a geek. Being as such, I love comic book movies. Sue me. They get a lot of grief lately because , as with found-footage films, and every other trend in cinema, the market got oversaturated and people got way more than they were hoping for.
We see it with horror movies a lot, these fads. Zombies. Vampires. Werewolves. Ghosts. Blah, blah, blah. Something captures the zeitgeist and then it’s done, and done to death. Heck, as I have stated previously, I sat on my zombie book for a while because I didn’t want to be the last one to the party, but that party kept going on and on.
Right now people are bored with superhero movies.
Or that’s what entertainment media tells us, and the louder voices online.
I think people are tired of superhero films crowding the market, for sure, but, as I have said, don’t blame them, blame the studios. The studios choose what gets made and waht to support, and as such, it’s on them to find balance in the marketplace. Just as we don’t need a half a dozen superhero films in theaters through the year, those films also don’t all need to be several hundred million dollar behemoths that hold the future of a whole studio in how they do at the box office.
It’s madness.
It’s not a sane way to run business.
But that’s Hollywood.
“Supergirl” is not great.
There, I said it, let’s move on.
The biggest problem a movie like “Supergirl” has, like “Marvels” had, and to a degree, “The Eternals,” is that without a villain teh casual fan knows, the stakes don’t feel important enough. The movies act as if they are comic books, where you can have lower stake villains, or villains who are not top of mind, because there is always another issue coming next, and you have to save your main villains for bigger story arcs, or a miniseries. With movies, nothing is guaranteed, and you can’t rely on getting another shot at making another. While it’s fun to do these films where it’s more about the hero than the villain, the fact is that if we can’t care about the villain, then we probably won’t care about the film.
That is not to say that “Supergirl” gets it all right.
The film is fun, and Alcock is very good as Supergirl. Momoa is OK as Lobo, but there just wasn’t a lot there for him to do. It’s like they just wanted to get him out there, so they could use him later. It’s a plan but, I mean…not always a great one. The story is something that, once it’s revealed, it’s dark. Really dark. Beyond potentially killing off Krypto. It works well with Supergirl, and makes the stakes high in a different way than we’re used to.
The action is well done, the film is well made, and looks good, and it’s great to see a damaged, struggling hero, who is still finding their way. Showing the human side of them is great. It’s something some fans don’t want, and resent, but it’s powerful.
Supergirl isn’t a hero that is as well known, or deeply entrenched in popular culture, and being a deeper hero, who is struggling, doesn’t make her an instant icon that people can connect with as easily. Unfortunately, people want the big heroes, in the big movies, but not all the time.
That has changed about people’s love and tolerance of superhero films.
They oversaturated things, and with the budgets and stress of it either being a huge hit (on TV or at the theater) immediately or it being seen as a bomb and killing its future, there’s no time for folks to get to know these characters.
Some things, some characters just aren’t going to make it to be adapted.
And that’s a shame.
“Supergirl” deserved better.
It’s a fun movie, and is perfect for home.
It’s a shame it didn’t do better at the theater, but thems the breaks. It’s worth a watch, especially if you’re a fan of superhero films. It’s not top tier, sure, but it’s enjoyable, and has a great new hero we haven’t really seen much of in films in the past.
TL;DR: A fun superhero film that is better at home than at theaters, with smaller stakes to invest in.
3.5 out of 5
