Supergirl

What? Are you seeing that right? 10 out of 10 stars? Yeah, this movie isn't any good...technically it's horrible, some of the acting his horrible, the plot really stinks, there is a lot that really... What? Are you seeing that right? 10 out of 10 stars? Yeah, this movie isn't any good...technically it's horrible, some of the acting his horrible, the plot really stinks, there is a lot that really sucks about this movie... BUT, it entertains. And my policy here is that so long as I can be entertained by a movie, it accomplished its goal. In 2018 retrospect, it's great because there are no politics behind the "girl" part of the title. It doesn't tell you "like this or you are a Nazi," but it was 1984 so...it's really not going to tell you that. And Helen Slater usually seems a little flat. She has rare instances where she actually shines, but she wouldn't be my first choice for a superhero. However, that being said, she DOES pull of "heroic" very well, so as flat as she may be, she did do a good job at being imposing when she needed to be and that helps you suspend your disbelief enough to actually get into the film. And it's hard to get into. There is enough low budget cheese to be a kick. There is enough just awfulness to enjoy the film for what it was. And that is never a bad thing. It can make for fun entertainment even if it makes for a bad film. Really what this film suffers from is an overdose of the early 80s. And really what makes this movie so much fun is an overdose of the the early 80s. You get a Footloose, Karate Kid feel for everything about the film. Too early to be totally Regan Era but not to early to be seriously Middle-America meets emerging New Wave culture and it makes for a great clash. It makes for entertainment, even if it is bad entertainment. So, you won't think this is a great film. But it will entertain you. It's worth watching, but not if you have to pay for it, that is not unless you get a wave of nostalgia wash over you.

<em>'Supergirl'</em> is a second straight dud from this franchise, though I'd honestly say it's ever so slightly more interesting than the preceding <em>'Superman III'</em>; it at least tries to tell ... <em>'Supergirl'</em> is a second straight dud from this franchise, though I'd honestly say it's ever so slightly more interesting than the preceding <em>'Superman III'</em>; it at least tries to tell a coherant story around its main character, which can't exactly be said for the aforementioned. Helen Slater is decent as Supergirl, any complaints with the character lie with how she is written rather than how she is portrayed by Slater. The best part of this movie, for me, is actually Faye Dunaway. Selena isn't necessarily a plus, though I think Dunaway's performance held potential. Peter O'Toole has a small part to play, nice to have an actor like him involved - on a similar note, it's a shame Christopher Reeve turned down a cameo, not that you could blame him of course. All in all, this is a disappointing movie. A shorter run time might've helped, fwiw.