Supergirl is branded 'a dispiriting girl power disappointment' as critics label Milly Alcock's superhero movie 'ugly' and 'flat' and call the heroine a 'Gen-Z malcontent' in lacklustre reviews 46%

By Laura Fox0%

6/25/2026, 9:04:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Framing Effect, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 48.3% saturation with 541 hits. Analysis detected 2,225 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,119 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of 46% (12,000 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.80% of the article peer group.

Supergirl is branded 'a dispiriting girl power disappointment' as critics label Milly Alcock's superhero movie 'ugly' and 'flat' and call the heroine a 'Gen-Z malcontent' in lacklustre reviews 
DC's latest attempt to expand their cinematic universe with Supergirl has gone down like a damp squib with critics, as they labelled the film 'ugly' and 'flat' in a string of lacklustre reviews. 
After building excitement with her brief cameo in last year's Superman, Milly Alcock's take on the famous heroine earned a mixed reception, with one critic even calling the film 'a dispiriting girl power disappointment.' 
Milly has been the target of relentless backlash since she was cast in the flick and has been on the receiving end of harsh comments about her appearance. 
The film sees Kara Zor-El 'join forces with an unlikely companion for an interstellar journey of vengeance and justice,' to track down an antidote after her beloved dog Krypton is poisoned. 
For many critics, Milly's performance as Kara Zor-El was one of the few positives in the film, despite her character being called a 'Gen-Z malcontent' in stark contrast to her squeaky clean male counterpart. 
Writing a two-star review for The Independent, Clarisse Loughrey said: 'While Nogueira's script adapts Tom King and Bilquis Evely's 2021 comic miniseries Woman of Tomorrow, Gillespie doesn't carry over any of its striking and beautiful cosmic imagery  instead, we're stuck in a colourless, utilitarian version of Gunn's own Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy. 
'It's cramped and dingy, with only an occasional bit of fun puppet or prosthetic alien work to break up the monotony.' 
Kevin Maher in The Times gave the film two stars, and made reference to Milly's modern take on Supergirl by calling her a 'Gen-Z malcontent.' 
He wrote: 'The film is perforated with needless and momentum-killing flashbacks that describe Kara's journey to Earth. 
We don't care! 
She's on Earth! 
That's enough! 
'And Corenswet pops up a handful of times, still interesting as a character, still searching for a better superhero film. 
Good luck with that.' 
Awarded the film three stars, Peter Bradshaw wrote in The Guardian: 'Supergirl isn't a perfect movie by any means, but there are moments when you'll believe this franchise can fly.' 
The Irish Times' Craig Gillespie gave the film two stars, writing: 'The infuriating thing about this overpriced movie is that the film-makers come close to solving the problem of Supergirl. 
'Subject of a terrible 1984 film and a decent 2015 TV series, the character has had trouble making distinct sense on screen. 
Alcock's swaggering layabout  who doesn't always close the door when going to the loo  reclaims her as an alien with enjoyably human flaws. 
'The bad news is that, as you have almost certainly guessed, she will be required to pull herself together in what used to be the final reel. 
Not fair. 
No fun. 
Give us back the hungover barfly.' 
Owen Gleiberman wrote in Variety: 'It's all so desperate to be ''punk rock.'' 
But Supergirl is a punk crock.' 
Pete Hammond wrote in Deadline: 'The special effects and relentlessly dark tone often get in the way of making this group rock despite the best efforts of Alcock who is a bit too quirky, playing Zor-El as somewhat reckless, headstrong, and not always put together.' 
In The Hollywood Reporter, David Rooney said: 'Given Australian director Gillespie’s history with films about spirited, rule-breaking women, like I, Tonya and Cruella, the failure to find emotional depth in the sisterhood of Kara and Ruthye is notable.' 
David Fear was more complimentary, writing in Rolling Stone: 'No one thought Superman was a fluke. 
'But if Gunn and Co. can keep maintaining this kind of quality and respect for the DC stable of side characters while digging into deeper, thornier terrain like this, and still adding an element of fun, this whole 2.0 era might actually make you believe a franchise reset can fly.' 
In Vulture, Alison Willmore said: 'Alcock, with her smirk and her anguished eyes, is a very watchable lead, but this aggressively minor movie doesn’t know what to do with her or her character. 
'And where’s the mystery in that? 
Supergirl, she’s just like us  running away from her problems (albeit all the way to other galaxies) and overinvesting in her beloved dog.' 
The Sun's Dulcie Pearce was full of praise for the film, awarding it four stars. 
She wrote: 'A large section of the film gives Supergirl’s backstory, which makes things a little too chaotic and a tad exhausting. 
'But with a few comedic appearances from Superman (David Corenswet), an excellent soundtrack and enough jeopardy to keep you intrigued, this film is off to a flier.' 
Alongside a mixed reaction from critics, Milly has also faced a furore over her looks after she was cast as the lead in the DC Studios remake. 
The drama began when Lois and Clark star Dean Cain faced backlash from Superman fans after seemingly mocking Alcock's appearance on social media. 
The conservative actor, 59, came under fire after responding to a meme that likened her to the primitive, ape-like human Cha-ka from the 1974 series Land of the Lost. 
A troll responded to Cain on X with an unflattering photo of Cha-ka and asked, 'And why does she look like this guy?' 
Cain then responded, 'Dang it... 
I laughed,' followed by a smiling emoji. 
The actor's reaction to the cruel comparison quickly spread on social media, leaving a number of superhero fans outraged. 
'What a fantastic way to kill your legacy. 
And what a glorious way to lose the respect of millions of kids that looked up to you three decades ago. 
What a disgrace,' wrote one person. 
Another commented: 'Your Superman performance is never going to be looked back upon fondly, your bitter jealousy has tainted any legacy you had left.' 
Cain eventually clarified that he 'never said she was ugly', but seemed overall unconcerned by the backlash. 
The American actor is best known for playing Superman in the '90s TV series Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. 
Alcock later issued a defiant response in the face of backlash over her casting in the iconic role. 
The Sydney-born actress told Variety Magazine that she was ignoring the criticism. 
'[The criticism] is from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts, or someone's name and then "Dad of four, Christian," which is hilarious to me,' she said. 
'I mean, whose opinion do you really care about? 
If you're p***ing the right kind of people off, you're doing okay!' 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Laura Fox: 5.6%Daily Mail: 2.7%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Laura Fox: 1.6%Daily Mail: 2.8%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 2.1%Laura Fox: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Laura Fox: 4.9%Daily Mail: 6.9%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 1.9%Laura Fox: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.4%Loss Aversion1.9%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Laura Fox: 2.2%Daily Mail: 2.1%Optimism Bias9.6%This article: 6.8%Laura Fox: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias6.8%This article: 48.3%Laura Fox: 14.9%Daily Mail: 10.9%Negativity Bias48.3%This article: 1.9%Laura Fox: 2.4%Daily Mail: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias1.9%This article: 5.7%Laura Fox: 2.2%Daily Mail: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.7%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Laura Fox: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.0%In-Group Bias4.1%This article: 2.6%Laura Fox: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.6%This article: 8.2%Laura Fox: 1.9%Daily Mail: 5.0%Halo Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Laura Fox: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.7%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 6.4%Laura Fox: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Laura Fox: 3.4%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem2.9%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.4%Laura Fox: 2.9%Daily Mail: 3.0%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 4.5%Laura Fox: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.9%False Dilemma4.5%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.4%Laura Fox: 6.4%Daily Mail: 3.9%Hasty Generalization22.4%This article: 0.3%Laura Fox: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Red Herring0.3%This article: 2.9%Laura Fox: 1.6%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon2.9%This article: 7.4%Laura Fox: 3.2%Daily Mail: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion7.4%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 1.7%Laura Fox: 2.1%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.7%This article: 1.5%Laura Fox: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Tu Quoque1.5%This article: 3.2%Laura Fox: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.0%Laura Fox: 2.5%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal3.0%This article: 1.1%Laura Fox: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.1%This article: 2.2%Laura Fox: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.2%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.6%Laura Fox: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading1.6%This article: 2.9%Laura Fox: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy2.9%This article: 5.7%Laura Fox: 6.7%Daily Mail: 3.3%Unattributed Quote5.7%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 2.4%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.0%Laura Fox: 5.1%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice5.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.4%Daily Mail: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Fox: 1.8%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1119 words analyzed.

Speakers

12speakers57%attributed speech480writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageClarisse Loughrey • 54 words • 0.0% coverageClarisse Loughrey • 21 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Maher • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Maher • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Maher • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Maher • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Maher • 2 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Maher • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Maher • 4 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Bradshaw • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Gillespie • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Gillespie • 22 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Gillespie • 25 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Gillespie • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Gillespie • 2 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Gillespie • 2 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Gillespie • 6 words • 0.0% coverageOwen Gleiberman • 13 words • 0.0% coverageOwen Gleiberman • 6 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hammond • 45 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Rooney • 38 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Fear • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Fear • 50 words • 0.0% coverageAlison Willmore • 33 words • 0.0% coverageAlison Willmore • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAlison Willmore • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDulcie Pearce • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDulcie Pearce • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageDean Cain • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDean Cain • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMilly Alcock • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMilly Alcock • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMilly Alcock • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Milly Alcock

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words8.5% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote+5.2 ptsWriter: 11.5%Milly Alcock: 16.7%16.7%Biased Writer Voice-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%Milly Alcock: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.