Let's Go Crazy: Supergirl

 I finished a draft for a story - after five hurs - ate breakfast around 2:30 pm and instead of cleaning up and doing some housework, I looked at Google News. More press for Supergirl. I have already made my point that it is an ok movie. But what as bothered me is the reaction to it. The reviews I find more interesting, maybe more than the movie which was more entertaining than mind-blowing.

'Supergirl' review: Let Milly Alcock party harder next time - Los Angeles Times

As usual, there’s a tyke in trouble: 13-year-old Ruthye (Eve Ridley), a fellow orphan with a ramrod disposition and a tidy brunet braid that gives away that her character is modeled on Hailee Steinfeld’s vengeful teenager in “True Grit.” Ruthye wants to hunt and kill the creep who murdered her family. Unlike Supergirl, the child thinks it’s healthier to exorcise — not imbibe — one’s heartache. The duo visit an Epstein-island-like planet of kidnapped breeding women where, in one of the script’s subtler sick horrors, the locals imply that pubescent Ruthye is more valuable than aged 23-year-old Supergirl. (Although some of the caged extras appear to be as ancient as 30.) It’s yet another swiped idea, this one from “Mad Max: Fury Road,” for a minor story beat that’s unnecessary. Still, Alcock reacts with exactly the right note of disdain: “Cool,” she croaks. ‘Nuff said.

The True Grit copy ends quick and conclusively, unless you've never read the book or watched both movies. Supergirl is not Rooster Cogburn, nor is Ruthye Mattie Ross from Yell County. Mattie Ross has more to do with Lobo. Only when Supergirl rises to the occasion of being Supergirl is there anything like the arc Charles Portis gave to Rooster Cogburn. It might also be noted what happened to Rooster after the main events of the novel - he reverted to his low-born, anti-social ways. Supergirl gives the hope that Kara has found her way back to people. Not that script makes this clear. Still, it is different from any other superhero movie I can think of right now.

Still, the production design has imaginatively askew takes on the mundane: gridded jail cells, plodding space buses, clumsy oxygen suits that shimmy on with a satisfying squeak. When Supergirl makes a pit stop at a celestial convenience store, she samples a snack that I’m forced to call poop-corn. If “Supergirl” sells enough of it, hopefully Alcock can rampage again in a more confident sequel that truly cuts loose.

That might be the most fun scene. What the movie bodes for the DC's cosmic stories may be most interesting. More about that below.

'Supergirl' Review: Super-Horrendous

James Gunn, along with Peter Safran, knew that he was launching DC Studios right into the teeth of superhero fatigue. Gunn got asked a lot about how he was going to avoid that, and the key thing he said was: We’re not going into production on any movie until the script we have is rock-solid. For that was the overriding problem with the superhero overkill era: The films had lousy scripts, which were used as grids on which to layer the visual effects. Gunn was right to want to take the comic-book genre back to well-structured screenwriting basics. So what has he done in his second DC outing? He’s given us a comic-book movie with the worst script I can remember. (It’s by Ana Nogueira.)

What about all those Sony Spider-verse movies that bombed? No, the script is not Citizen Kane; it is not Iron an; but neither is Superman v. Batman. 

I’ve never bought the idea that movies were ruined by “Jaws” and “Star Wars,” but watching “Supergirl” you might well think that they were ruined by the Mos Eisley Cantina scene of “Star Wars.” Because that seems to be the movie’s dominant influence. One set piece after another features rubbery creatures with heads like melting anvils and tentacles coming out of strange places, as if this, after 50 years, was still charming and awesome. (Industrial Light & Magic is one of the film’s visual-effects houses.) Actually, the cantina scene was corny even back then, and creatures like these now make you feel trapped in a Muppet movie.

Alien came to mind along with Star Wars. Maybe even more in the atmosphere. Before Alien, the science fiction aesthetic was sterile cleanliness; after, it had a lived-in messiness of use and decay. That DC has a multi-species universe the creature designs had to follow the cantina scene's multitude of designs. Frankly, this felt like the greatest stretch of imagination in the movie.

'Supergirl' Review -  Milly Alcock Rises Above Poor DCU Growing Pains

Pulling from Woman of Tomorrow was a striking choice for a film adaptation, showing audiences a different interpretation of Supergirl than they might be familiar with and providing a unique foil to Corenswet’s boy-scout Superman. It’s genuinely refreshing to see this version of Kara on screen, as Supergirl is bravely uninterested in toning down her flaws and eccentricities. Yet, Kara is still a lovable character, and Milly Alcock slips so comfortably into the role. Alcock gives Kara pathos and a razor-sharp edge that carries the entire movie, sometimes even doing the heavy emotional lifting that the writing and directing fail to deliver. I hope to see Alcock shine in a film more worthy of her talents in the future.

This might be the best criticism I have seen; it runs through several reviews. Is it because our society has gotten so misogynistic? Did the men start crying and booing when Ripley killed the alien in Aliens?

Is this a cool neo-space western? Is this a grounded character study? Is it a flashy space opera? Supergirl never seems to commit to anything. Ana Nogueira‘s script prefers to sheepishly flirt with all these tones rather than balancing them. The main conflict of Supergirl also feels strangely disconnected from Kara herself. Notably, Captain Marvel (2019) had a similar problem, where all the most compelling character development occurred in flashbacks. It’s not that these heroines are hollow; it’s just that we rarely see them make choices that shape who they are in the present storylines of their films. Honestly, it’s maddening how little the creatives learned from the past mistakes of other female-driven comic book movies.

***

It’s far from the genre’s worst, especially within the standards of what the DC franchise has delivered in the past, but Supergirl deeply suffers from not knowing how to build a film around its iconic heroine.

★ ★ ½

I Wanted to Like ‘Supergirl’ (And I Kind of Did, Sort Of) 

Alcock successfully sells a character who doesn’t know what home is and identifies with nowhere, using copious amounts of alcohol to dull the pain of her past. However, the film fluctuates wildly on whether it wants to be an origin story, making an emotional connection with Kara difficult. The narrative expects the audience to understand her trauma without elaborating on it early on, meaning she initially just comes across as a drunk trying to be funny.

***

That disconnect is exactly why the viewing experience is so frustrating. There are so many noteworthy moments buried inside a disjointed narrative that it creates a constant push-and-pull; I didn’t know whether to lean in or pull away. The relationship between Supergirl and Ruthye lacks chemistry – it feels quite tame – but the dynamic of Kara stepping into a “big sister” role to warn Ruthye that revenge yields no rewards works beautifully in the film’s key moments. Kara’s evolution into the hero we expect is genuinely impressive when it finally arrives, especially since she spends most of the film out of costume. And the brief cameos from Superman himself are wholesome enough to conjure a smile – a sweet reminder of a cousin looking out for family.

The foundation of a great story was there, and the character development was exactly what the audience needed; it just required tighter direction. To prove the point, Jason Momoa pops up as the chaotic-neutral Lobo. The cameo is designed to provide comedic chaos, but it feels incredibly tame. Instead of landing jokes, it just feels like Momoa throwing his weight around and shouting his lines, with little consideration for comedic timing or whether the character fits the scene.

I never had any interest in the character or great expectation of the movie, but Alcok's performance is what stitches the script together. 

Supergirl Review: Unnecessary Tie-Ins & Incomprehensible Action

Much like the Levity Test for awards hopefuls, there’s a similar test I have for action movies and sci-fi blockbusters — not a test, per se, but more like a common marker of baseline competence. I call it the “who is doing what and where” test.

That’s not a demand for more exposition, or that filmmakers pre-fill every “plot hole” and explain away all the movie magic. It’s simply a plea for coherent visual design. I tend to be invested in the action of an action-based movie when I can tell who is doing what and where. Without that, it turns into a montage of blurs and reaction shots that kills all suspense. Rather than being on the ride, I’m simply biding time between outcomes. Remember when filmmakers could convey a basic sense of spatial awareness? We used to be a proper country.

Take the Harrier Jet sequence in True Lies. The whole thing is pretty ridiculous on the face of it. It’s goofy, to the point that you wonder how much is even meant to be taken “seriously,” and some of the effects even look kind of chintzy to modern eyes. But there isn’t a single second of it that leaves you wondering who is doing what and where. Whatever you think of the ride, you’re on it. James Cameron builds suspense and wonder through carefully constructed frames, allowing this big, sort of idiotic cat-and-mouse game played with hovering fighter jet to work as both drama and slapstick. “Believable?” Maybe. But really who cares, it’s gorgeous.

Interesting test. I like it. I also like how he nails a few more references, potentially even more pertinent than True Grit.

The only way to save the dog from a protracted, painful death is to find Krem and retrieve the antidote. Kara has three days to do so (the relativity of time on different planets is never addressed, perhaps mercifully so). And so, even if Kara is ambivalent about helping Ruthye, she has to find Krem in order to help her dog. Popeye, John Wick, Princess Bride… what was I saying about obvious influences?

On the one hand, it’s rather refreshing that the James Gunn-era of DC has, on some level, solved the stakes-inflation problem that bedeviled the MCU. Where every plot was about a big bad planning to destroy the Earth, all life in the universe, the very fabric of reality, etc (exhausting!). They solved it largely by ripping references from other movies, sure, but still: an improvement. That being said, if you’re going to make a movie that rests on a mission to save a cute dog, maybe just use a real dog? There’s a limit to how much I can care about a “dog” rendered in mediocre CG. I suppose I can understand the need for CG when the dog is doing super stuff, but not when he spends most of the movie lying sick on a table or doing regular dog things. Could we not find a real dog? It’s not like there’s a shortage of real dogs in the world.

Good point about the dog, too. Probably a problem of finding the right-looking dog. Even more in making the point about raising stakes. I see it as a coming of age story for Kara, not the usual beat up on the villain superhero story. Still the script muddles that point, but I am willing to give them points for making the try. 

'Supergirl' is a grim, violent, and depressing superhero movie

When we first meet the titular Supergirl, Kara Zor-El, she's a sad, lonely, drunk who spends her days hungover and her nights drinking heavily with her dog. She's taken off to a planet with a red sun, which removes her powers and makes her vulnerable like an ordinary human, so that she can feel the effects of booze. She abuses it to avoid her real feelings of anger and abandonment stemming from deep childhood trauma and a sense of parental abandonment that the film slowly reveals. 

If that isn't bright and cheery enough, she quickly gets caught up in a young girl's quest to find the Brigands—leather-and-spikes-wearing space raiders who murdered the girl's mother, father, and brother in front of her, in one of the movie's two (!) separate on-screen family massacres. It turns out that the Brigands are essentially an intergalactic rape and sex trafficking gang who make a practice of abducting, imprisoning, and sexually assaulting young women, whom they call brides, to perpetuate their all-male society. 

Directed by Craig Gillespie (I, Tonya and Cruella), the movie is tinged with the sort of Heavy Metal-esque trippy pulp weirdness that Gunn is known for, but it comes across as forced and tonally at odds with its hero. The whole thing plays like a fourth-rate Mad Max ripoff, but without the pedal-to-the-metal action sequences or the single-minded vengeful fury. It's not fun. It's barely even righteous. It's just miserable. At one point, Supergirl flat-out murders a guy by pushing a giant sword through his neck. Somehow, I suspect even Zack Snyder would be appalled. 

Which makes me think it did not fit the reviewer's expectations rather than finding any good in what was on the screen. 

Review: “Supergirl” is Perfectly Fine, Which is a Little Disappointing - Blog - The Film Experience

It's not like the film does anything wrong, it's just slight. I love not having a plot hinge on universe-changing implications, but this film just establishes the Supergirl character enough to lead to other stories. Table-setting is always a part of the deal with these connected universe stories, but it's surrounded by such low stakes and forgettable characters, it's hard to care...

None of this is the fault of Milly Alcock, who gives her all to the character of Kara Zor-El/Supergirl. Any characterization of hers is lush, full, charismatic, and welcome. At the same time, despite making a Supergirl film, the filmmakers go out of their way to act like you should care about the Brigands, Kryptonian backstory, and the logistics of red, yellow, and green suns. It's a very busy film for essentially a plot that contains two simple story elements.

***

More than anything, Supergirl is ultimately forgettable. There isn't much to hang your hat on, though I was mildly entertained. It's a terrible middle ground to be when you put this much money and effort into a large-scale universe. It's an underwhelming start for the character, despite Milly Alcock's best efforts.

Grade: B-/C+

Supergirl Should Be Ashamed of Itself - Reactor for an all out demolishing of the movie.

I find myself agreeing with the grades given more than some of the written commentary. But I come back to my main question of late: by what standards are we judging and can those standards survive judgment?

sch 6/28 

I finished my forays into Supergirl with this video that does a better job than most of the above review of distinguishing between the movie-in-and-of-itself and the novel-as-part-of-a-series. I will admit, grudgingly, there is an aesthetic to the series, but I remain convinced it is it the financial that overtops the aesthetic. YMMV.

 sch 6/30