Supergirl Soars, But Does She Reach New Heights?
A Reflective Take on DC’s Latest Adventure
There’s something undeniably captivating about Supergirl. Not just the character, but the idea of her—a symbol of strength, vulnerability, and the eternal struggle to find one’s place in the universe. So when Supergirl (2026) hit the theaters, I, like many, was eager to see how this iconic figure would be reimagined for a new era. But after watching it, I’m left with a mix of admiration and frustration. It’s a film that soars in moments but never quite reaches the stratosphere it aims for.
A Hero with Edge, But a Story That Plays It Safe
One thing that immediately stands out is Milly Alcock’s portrayal of Kara Zor-El. She’s raw, flawed, and refreshingly human. What makes this particularly fascinating is how the film leans into her imperfections—a superhero who parties too hard, struggles with her identity, and carries emotional baggage. It’s a bold departure from the squeaky-clean heroes we’re used to, and Alcock nails it. But here’s where the film falters: the story itself feels like a missed opportunity.
The plot, centered around Kara’s quest to save her dog, Krypto, is simple enough. But what many people don’t realize is that simplicity can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s accessible and straightforward. On the other, it feels generic, especially in an era where superhero films are expected to push boundaries. Personally, I think the decision to focus on a personal, almost mundane mission—saving a pet—could have been groundbreaking. Instead, it feels like a safe bet, a story we’ve seen variations of before.
The Companion Problem: Ruthye’s Pointless Presence
Let’s talk about Ruthye, played by Eve Ridley. In my opinion, her character is the film’s weakest link. She’s introduced as a revenge-seeker who joins Kara’s journey, but her role feels forced. What this really suggests is that the film was trying to tick off the ‘unlikely duo’ trope without adding depth. Ruthye doesn’t contribute meaningfully to the plot or Kara’s character arc. It’s a shame, because Ridley’s performance isn’t the issue—it’s the writing.
This raises a deeper question: Why do superhero films still rely on such predictable character dynamics? Ruthye could have been a compelling foil to Kara, someone who challenges her worldview or forces her to confront her own flaws. Instead, she’s a plot device, and that’s a missed opportunity.
Lobo Steals the Show, But Can’t Save the Film
Now, let’s talk about the undeniable highlight: Jason Momoa’s Lobo. From my perspective, this is the character we’ve all been waiting for. Momoa brings a chaotic energy that’s both hilarious and terrifying. His Lobo is a breath of fresh air in a film that often feels too restrained. What makes this particularly fascinating is how Lobo’s unpredictability contrasts with Kara’s more grounded struggles.
But here’s the thing: as much as I loved Lobo, he can’t carry the entire film. His scenes are electric, but they’re few and far between. It’s like the film is afraid to fully embrace its wilder elements, opting instead for a middle-of-the-road approach. If you take a step back and think about it, this is a recurring issue in modern superhero films—they hint at boldness but rarely commit.
Action Sequences: A Mixed Bag of CGI and Potential
The action in Supergirl is a prime example of this inconsistency. Some moments are visually stunning, like the flying sequences in space, which range from breathtaking to laughably awkward. Other times, the CGI feels generic, a reminder that we’ve seen these kinds of fights a hundred times before. What many people don’t realize is that superhero action isn’t just about spectacle—it’s about storytelling.
A detail that I find especially interesting is how the film tries to balance its visual style with emotional stakes. The scenes with Krypto are genuinely moving, but they’re overshadowed by the uneven tone of the action. It’s as if the film can’t decide whether it wants to be a heartfelt drama or a high-octane adventure.
Craig Gillespie’s Safe Hands, But Missing Spark
Director Craig Gillespie is known for taking on challenging projects, from Fright Night to Cruella. So, I was surprised by how lackluster Supergirl feels. It’s not a bad film by any means, but it lacks the energy and innovation I’ve come to expect from him. Personally, I think he played it too safe, perhaps constrained by the expectations of the DCU reboot.
This raises a deeper question: Are directors like Gillespie being given enough creative freedom in these franchise films? Or are they forced to adhere to a formula that prioritizes box office safety over artistic risk? It’s a frustrating trend, and Supergirl feels like another casualty of it.
The Future of Supergirl: A Glimmer of Hope
Despite its flaws, Supergirl isn’t a total write-off. Alcock’s performance alone is reason enough to watch it. She embodies Kara with such authenticity that I’m genuinely excited to see where her character goes next. What this really suggests is that the DCU has a strong foundation with her, even if the film itself doesn’t fully capitalize on it.
In my opinion, the biggest takeaway is that superhero films need to take more risks. We’re past the point of needing origin stories or generic plots. Audiences crave depth, innovation, and characters who feel real. Supergirl hints at this potential but ultimately falls short.
So, what did you think? Is Supergirl a step forward for the DCU, or a missed opportunity? Let’s keep the conversation going—because if there’s one thing this film proves, it’s that Supergirl deserves better.
