Disclaimer: Apologies in advance to the seven Peliplat readers who actually liked Superman (2025). And to the studio executives who thought doubling down on this "strategy" was a good idea, we have a bridge in Metropolis to sell you. Spoilers? Absolutely. Do we care? Less than James Gunn cares about the definition of "storytelling is king." Proceed at your own risk.
Remember when I wrote Kryptonite for the Brain: Superman 2025 Is a Dumpster Fire. Period.? Remember when I warned that this new DCU was built on a foundation of quicksand and bad CGI monkeys? Well, grab your popcorn and your smelling salts, because Supergirl has arrived, and it's exactly the trainwreck I predicted. The only difference? This time, the dumpster fire has a hangover and a super-dog with a weak bladder.
Let's not mince words. Supergirl isn't just bad. It's boring, which, as my friends at CBC astutely noted, is somehow worse. "It is honestly shocking how directionless this followup to DCU's eclectically energetic 2025 Superman is," they wrote. And they're right. If Superman was a sensory assault of caffeinated toddlers, Supergirl is the morning-after regret: sluggish, confused, and desperately trying to remember what it was supposed to be doing.
The "Punk Rock" Farce: Hangover Chic and Space Barfights
The film opens with Kara Zor-El (Milly Alcock) waking up with a hangover, sunglasses askew, having just spent her birthday week bar-hopping across the galaxy. This is DC's idea of "punk rock." She's doing her best Hancock impression, except Hancock did it better. The New York Times described Supergirl almost perfectly: "a beautifully styled and scrupulously photographed one, true, but a wreck nevertheless." Only they got the cinematography wrong, because it was muddy and dark as f***.
The writers have apparently never met a superhero trope they couldn't bludgeon to death. There's the "reluctant hero" who hates her powers. There's the "precocious kid sidekick" (Ruthye) who teaches her how to "feel" again. There's the "generic bad guy" (Cream, Crumb, Krem, whatever) who is so forgettable that the only thing anyone remembers about him is his habit of eating other people's food and a creepy Robert De Niro's Taxi Driver impression. The CBC review nailed it: "Nogueira's script feels like a bucket of action tropes assembled without understanding why they work, while Gillespie's sluggish, anti-action direction bogs it down even more." If this is the best of Nogueira's work, the next Wonder Woman script is in big trouble.
And speaking of incoherent writing, Supergirl gives Ruthye the standard "don't kill, it'll ruin your soul" lecture, no context, no killing backstory, just vibes. Then she kills the living Crap, Cramp, Krem, whatever. Guess the soul-ruining only applies to sidekicks.
And let's talk about the "action." One of the most powerful beings in the universe gets her butt handed to her in bar fights against street-level thugs. Yes, you read that correctly. Supergirl, who can fly through suns and punch planets, can't handle a few dive-bar brawlers. "Batman's Damian Wayne could handle without breaking a sweat," the critics pointed out. This is the kind of contrived, artificial weakness that makes audiences roll their eyes instead of sitting on the edge of their seats.
Milly Alcock: The Wrong Woman for the Cape
Now, let me address the elephant in the room: Milly Alcock is miscast. And before the internet mob comes for me with torches and pitchforks, let me explain.
Yes, she was splendid in House of the Dragon. Yes, she can do "angry" and "acerbic" and "traumatized" better than most actresses her age. But none of that makes her Supergirl.
Alcock brings House of the Dragon's Rhaenyra, brooding, resentful, and sharp-edged, to a character that demands warmth, vulnerability, and that ineffable something that makes you want to believe in heroes again. Watching her scowl her way through the runtime, I kept thinking: "This isn't Supergirl. This is Angrygirl. This is Sourgirl. This is Cynicalgirl."
She has the blonde hair, the strong jaw, the piercing eyes. But that's where it ends. Looking like a comic book panel and being Supergirl are two very different things. This isn't a performance. It's cosplay.
That's not to say she's a bad actress. I'm saying she's a bad fit for this role. And that's on the casting director, not on her.
The New York Times praised her for being "naturally appealing," but even they couldn't deny that "the movie gives her little to do but be morose." And that's the tragedy. Alcock has the chops. She has the screen presence. But this script, this director, and this version of the character are all working against her.
An actress who could actually smile and mean it? Someone who could sell both the trauma and the triumph? Someone like Sasha Calle, who at least brought a ferocity and physicality to the Flash cameo that made you want more. Or someone who could balance the weight of Krypton with a genuine spark of joy, even like, dare I say, Sydney Sweeney. Too bad she was busy doing... literally anything else. Instead, we got Rhaenyra Targaryen in a cape and Jackie O sunglasses.
The "Worst Script I Can Remember" And I Called It
Remember when James Gunn promised that "storytelling is 100% king"? Remember when he swore they would "not green light a film until we have a finished script we're happy with"? Well, Owen Gleiberman of Variety had a message for Gunn: he has "given us a comic-book movie with the worst script I can remember."
And I believe him. This is the same team that gave us Superman 2025's pocket-universe piñata and space-pimp Jor-El. Why would I expect anything better the second time around? The ComingSoon.net headline says it all: "James Gunn Called Out for Supergirl's 'Worst Script' After 'Storytelling Is King' Promise." It's almost poetic, the architect of this new universe hoisted by his own retard… I mean, petard.
The script is so bad that even the defenders of the film, and yes, there are some shills, are forced to admit that it's a mess. The film is so busy trying to be Mad Max, True Grit, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Star Wars that it forgets to be, you know, Supergirl. As one critic put it, "Instead of taking the post-apocalyptic vibes of Mad Max, they lift a whole plot point straight from Fury Road and handle it, frankly, a little clumsily."
Lobo, Krypto, and the Boredom of It All
You know your movie is in trouble when the most memorable characters are the ones that have nothing to do with the plot. Jason Momoa's Lobo, a demonic biker god, stumbles in and out of the film with all the consequence of "a Stan Lee MCU cameo." He's fun, sure, but he's utterly inconsequential. You could remove his entire character from the movie, and nothing would change.
And then there's Krypto. The super-dog was the breakout star of Superman (2025), but here he's reduced to a plot device, poisoned so that Kara has a reason to chase after Crème, Cram, Crab, Krem, whatever. Even the dog gets shortchanged.
The New York Times noted that the film announces its tone "with a tight shot of Krypto [pissing] on a newspaper photo of Superman." It's a cheap laugh that sets the stage for a film that treats its legacy with the same insulting irreverence.
And at this point, you may have noticed a pattern emerging: a series of "and then..." moments. And then the hangover. And then the bar fights. And then Lobo shows up. And then he's gone. And then Superman cameos. And then he's gone. And then the don't-kill lecture. And then she kills the bad guy anyway. And then... who gives a rat's a**? That's exactly how Supergirl plays, lurching from one disconnected absurdity to the next. Hey, sounds like Superman (2025), no?
A Splintered Fandom and a Troubled Franchise
It's telling that there's a massive gap between the critics (who hate it, at 56% or lower at the point of writing) and the audience (who are... slightly more forgiving, at 76-77%). But let's be honest, an audience score in the 70s is hardly a victory lap. It means that fans are tolerating this mediocrity because they desperately want the DCU to succeed. They're grading on a curve. The BBC reports that DC Studios co-CEO Peter Safran admitted the studio needs to "win back fans' trust." Duh.
As I predicted in my Superman review, this universe is built on shaky ground. Gunn's Superman was a chaotic, overstuffed mess, and Supergirl is its lethargic, directionless cousin. The word "boring" appears in almost every review, and for a superhero movie, that's a death sentence.
Verdict:
Supergirl (2026) is proof that DC Studios hasn't learned a thing. It's derivative, sluggish, and fundamentally confused about what it wants to be. It tries to be gritty and irreverent, heartfelt and action-packed, and ends up being none of those things. It's a 1-hour-47-minute slog through the most tired superhero clichés, held together only by the thin thread of Milly Alcock's "charisma," and even that isn't enough to save it.
So, Peliplat readers, I told you so. The dumpster fire I warned about has spread, and this time, it's wearing an oversized pair of Jackie O shades and nursing a hangover.
Save your money. Save your sanity. Go watch the 1984 Supergirl. At least that one had the decency to be so bad it's entertaining. Though still bad. Like, really bad. But at least it knew it.
Supergirl 2026: Argo City. Built by Krypton's survivors. On Kryptonite. What could go wrong?
Warner Bros. Same thing. With James Gunn. See where this is going?
#SupergirlIsBoring #MillyMiscast #WomanOfTomorrowMyA** #GunnsWorstScript #ToldYouSo #JamesGunnIsWBsKryptonite #ThanksForWatchingBitch!
Share your thoughts!
Be the first to start the conversation.