Milly Alcock carries Supergirl as reviews split on script, pacing, and DCU urgency

Supergirl arrives in theaters this weekend as the DC Universe’s second installment, and the first reviews land with a pattern that matters: critics broadly agree Milly Alcock makes the movie work, even when they do not fully buy the rest. Across outlets, Alcock is repeatedly described as the “shining light” and a “powerful performance,” with several reviewers saying she turns a familiar superhero setup into something more affecting and watchable. One way to read this for executives is simple. When the story stumbles, a top-tier lead performance can still preserve audience attention. When the franchise vision stumbles too, it risks becoming “enjoyable enough” rather than appointment TV.

The other half of the early reaction is the part that makes boards and partners pay attention. Reviewers call the script uneven, with comments ranging from “not a perfect movie by any means” to “the worst script I can remember” and criticisms that the film never reaches the “clarity, precision, or narrative confidence” that made Superman such a pleasant surprise. That is not the same as saying the film fails. It is saying the movie does not convincingly answer the big DCU question embedded in every new entry: how urgent is the future, and does the movie make you feel it? Even in reviews that praise certain strengths, writers note missed opportunities and a lack of enough standout moments to make the next chapter feel like a must-see reckoning.

Let’s anchor the on-screen details, because they show why these reviews are likely to spread fast. Supergirl spins off from 2025’s Superman and stars Milly Alcock as Kara Zor-El. Jason Momoa makes his debut as Lobo, directed by Craig Gillespie. The supporting cast includes Matthias Schoenaerts and Eve Ridley, and the filmmakers include screenwriter Ana Nogueira. This matters because casting and creative leadership signal intent to both fans and investors. When critics then say the film’s strengths concentrate heavily on the lead and specific emotional segments, it suggests the production’s “through-line” may not be as cohesive as the brand would prefer.

So what, specifically, are critics pointing to as the film’s best leverage points? Multiple reviewers praise staying small while asking big questions. Peter Bradshaw calls it entertaining and visually engaging, with a clear story that avoids getting bogged down in tangled subsidiary material and boring backstory. David Rooney highlights emotional pulse in the flashbacks to Kara’s final months on what’s left of her dying home planet Krypton, calling these scenes a key emotional driver. Brian Truitt also frames it as a more emotional journey than fans might expect, while Courtney Howard argues the movie adapts the comic book’s heart and character drive.

On the technical and action side, critics are not complaining across the board. Several mention solid visual effects and action choreography, and cite standout moments such as Kara battling teleporting tech pirates on a space bus. Therese Lacson notes strong needle drops and a moving score accompanying action, and Digital Spy points to a vibrant slow-motion sequence near the end soundtracked to a great cover of “The Middle.” But other reviews say the action can turn muddled as the director struggles to track multiple threads, and that clashes can feel generic or the effects strictly standard-issue. The result is a split that executives should treat as operational, not aesthetic: it implies the movie may have moments of high execution quality but not enough consistency to make the overall experience feel sharply engineered.

Then there’s the tone and worldbuilding question, which connects directly to the DCU strategy critics seem to be testing in real time. Some reviewers compare the film’s science-fantasy weirdness and offbeat humor to Guardians of the Galaxy. Others say the execution leans more toward “Mad Max: Fury Road” vibes or “Beyond Thunder Dome.” In parallel, Therese Lacson says Supergirl has made its mark on the DCU as the definitive and best version of the superhero to date, and Brandon Lewis says worldbuilding improves on Superman by integrating supporting DCU characters more elegantly. But other reviewers argue the movie is less confident in its narrative framing, and that it never reaches the precision and confidence of Superman.

Two additional notes stand out because they suggest specific creative decisions that may not land with the core audience. Collider’s Therese Lacson says Lobo does not actually appear in the comics run and argues his inclusion feels meant to please fans rather than serve the narrative. Meanwhile, other criticism points to the adaptation itself, with Julian Lytle suggesting director Craig Gillespie and screenwriter Ana Nogueira veered too much from the comic. That combination is important. If the adaptation’s faithfulness and its narrative function feel mismatched, it can divide fans even when the lead performance is beloved.

For executives and partners watching franchise performance, this is the second-order takeaway. Star-centric praise can stabilize near-term interest, but script clarity and narrative confidence drive long-term franchise trust. If critics consistently describe the film as watchable but not urgently visionary, the DCU may face a harder time converting casual viewers into repeat franchise advocates. Translation: Milly Alcock can power the movie through rocky spots, but the brand still needs the story architecture to make “the future of the DCU feel especially urgent.”