Solid film ngl!! MILLY ALCOCK IS SUPERGIRL!!!! I thought she killed the character and I can’t wait to see her in future projects! Mamoa as Lobo was really good as well! The film definitely has its problems but it’s a fun movie! Doesn’t deserve half the hate it gets! 6/10
I just saw SUPERGIRL and the review are just straight up misogynistic. It’s not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination.
SUPERGIRL is basically a mash up of Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy. If you like any films in either franchise you’ll like SUPERGIRL.
Tem tanta misoginia na maneira como a #Supergirl está sendo encarada por parte do público e da crítica.
Que o mundo nerd é machista e conservador a gente já sabe, mas ver críticos importantes agirem com evidente misoginia é demais pra mim.
Absolutely hilarious that in trying to dunk on the movie, this tweet inadvertently highlights the misogyny of male viewers shitting on the movie.
There is not a single clip from a woman here. None. I wonder why.
Funny how the narrative falls apart once people actually watch Supergirl.
People walking out of screenings reportedly said things like, "I thought it would suck, but I loved it," and "It blew me away."
That's what happens when months of bad-faith narratives convince people to skip a movie before seeing it. What ruined this movie is the bias campaign against it.
Variety should apologize.
Supergirl was great.
Milly Alcock was badass. A deep performance full of pain and a journey for purpose.
That needle drop was fine. Y’all need to chill.
Momoa IS Lobo.
Honestly, there were aspects of Supergirl I enjoyed more than Superman.
Go see Supergirl everyone. Give this movie a chance. Don’t be swayed not to see it by haters who haven’t seen the film. Go see the movie. Make your own opinion about it. If you love it or like it, great. If not, at least you can say you were fair and gave it a chance.
I saw “Supergirl” in IMAX. It wasn’t a “superhero movie” about saving the Earth through self-sacrifice as “justice” confronts “evil.” It was a coming-of-age story about saving oneself, Kara, as she struggles with her own trauma. Structurally, it feels less like “Mad Max: Fury Road” (2015), where everyone is driven purely by survival instinct beyond notions of good and evil, and more like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), where heroes, villains, and scoundrels all converge.
You can defend Truschke if you want, but asking us to forget or accept this while you lecture about "secular method" in a long thread undermines your own argument. True secular history should critique poor interpretations regardless of whose sacred text is involved.
Audrey Truschke wrote (2018): "During the agnipariksha, Sita basically tells Rama he’s a misogynistic pig and uncouth." She also claimed Sita accused Lakshmana of lusting after her. She said she was loosely translating the critical edition.
And I said "get your facts straight" because she did not call Rama a misogynist pig. She said, "I did not and do not endorse Sita’s criticism of Rama." Why are you hung up on what one person said 8 years ago? If you want to focus on such things, that's your choice. But don't use them to characterize all historians.
Hindus are not obligated to accept such vulgar, sensationalist interpretations of our epics. When we push back, we get labeled "Hindutva" or "ethnonationalist" or "Hindu supremacists attack academia".