IMDb user comments for
Supergirl (1984) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

120 comments in total

---

88 out of 115 people found the following review useful:
Helen Slater is Superb, Faye Dunaway is Delicious, and Warner Bros. are MIFFED!, 7 April 2003

Author: crittifer from THE STATES

First of all, I am sick of all the bad reviews people seem to say about this exceptional film. For starters, the film had over the top special effects, a GREAT cast, BEAUTIFUL heroine, breathtaking musical score, good direction, and all else that goes with it! I saw this film as a young child during the whole war in early 1990, and let me tell you it was an experience that I haven't yet forgotten! The film deals with young Kara, from Argo City, the survivors of krypton. She loses the omegahedron, a power source of importance to her argo city. As she knows the consequences of the lost source, she travels to earth to retrieve it, but it has fallen into the hands of the world domination hungry Selina, who will consider nothing less. Supergirl arrives on earth and the battle begins between good and evil. Supergirl faces a demonic force made from pure energy of evil, travels to a dangerous phantom zone. The film was panned for no reason what so ever, it has intellect and gracefullness, which the ruthless money driven critics obviously chose to ignore. The real root to this film's problems is not the critics, but rather the studio and producers which finished this film. First, they didn't like Helen Slater. Ilya Salkind hath many a time mentioned the regret he feels that they didn't get some pretty girl who couldn't act (Brooke Sheilds) to do the part. Then, he and his father dumped the film for god knows why! Next in line, Warners hailed to the Salkinds for giving them a good Superman, and who could blame them, but in this case, because of their doubts, they just gave up on the film altogether. This film is piece by piece what superhero movie making is all about. It cost $50 million to make, and the crew are still proud of it! DON'T HINDER SOMEONE'S ART! Last but not least the cast are powerful and Helen Slater is the best choice, no one care's what Ilya Salkind thinks! Faye Dunaway, who is very much proud of this film, gives a tounge in cheek performance in a campy way! TRI-STAR, who picked this film up chopped the film up and distributed it horribly. Now, Warners are miffed and trying to speak up for it, but that's a different story. All in all, The film was a GREAT film from the start, and remains to this day thusly! Thank you to AnchorBay for recreating my innocence and happiness. Sad though, the irony of it is lost in today's generation. A 10/10!

---

82 out of 108 people found the following review useful:
The TRUE heart of a beautiful hero., 5 January 2005

Author: BansheeCreature from The World Of Movies

In the depths of inner-space, we find a city called Argo City. The inhabitants are not unknown, for they come from Krypton, a world which has never been forgotten. These Argonians have barely escaped the dangers that ruined the Kryptonian existence, and now they have created Argo City as a new home. We all know Krypton is where Superman is from. Argo City is the home of his surviving family, including his cousin, Kara. Kara is Supergirl, and portrayed in the most wondrous, fabulous, ultimately fantastic performance by the beautiful Helen Slater, who put so much into the part, she deserved more than America gave her. Kara creates a problem, as she looses a power source by accident. This power source is part of what makes the glorious city operate. Thusly, she takes responsibility for her own actions and goes after it...and onto the best adventure in superhero history! The film focuses on Supergirls adventures when she arrives on earth, from her FANTASTIC ariel ballet entrance, to her final battle with the witch Selena, portrayed by a darn-good-fun-loving Faye Dunaway. Supergirl must retrieve the power source, and return it home, where her city shall live again. This film is simply, the best super-action film in the whole genre. We were given the ultimate superhero film six years earlier in Christopher Reeve, whom also portrayed a fantastic superhero. Helen Slater was the only actress to actually become the girl she displays for us. Faye Dunaway was extremely fun to watch, as she is in an on-going battle with another kind of superhero. Being a spin-off of the highly acclaimed '78 masterpiece, this film is gracefully linked with numerous references and a cameo by Marc McClure. What WB allowed Ilia Salkind and the director Jeannot Szwarc to do was awful, it was awful! But I feel we were still given a wonderful movie 20 years ago! What difference does it make if we cannot answer all the questions, so what if it wasn't the film this country wanted...it was NOT supposed to be an identical superhero movie with flying missiles and plots to destroy the world! SO WHAT? This is a fantasy, and more so as a superhero film would be like. Monsters and supernatural wonders beyond belief! Something tells me that if this film were NOT a film about Supermans' cousin, people would have accepted it better. It was written on a fantasy journey of familiarity just as "Dark Crystal", "Labyrinth" and "NeverEnding Story" Could it be that people are not accepting of the female species? Just look at the awful ways that other female hero films are written! This film is far better and much more intelligent than that! The film Supergirl surpasses all that and goes even further than it seems. The title character is smart, strong, and constantly determined. The villain is witty, desperate, and viciously determined. In this, we have a dichotomous image of two sides in one world. What else do you need? We have a great film that has never been given the proper chance it deserves. Supergirl is so much more than one sees it to be. People who do see it for wonderful movie it is, are the real ones who know the true heart of a beautiful superhero, and will not cease to be satisfied by what a film of its kind has to offer. The acting is exquisite, and the direction is perfect. Slater and Dunaway draw a sensational picture of mental, and physical power, and Jerry Goldsmiths' score will send a vibrant thrill of emotion through your very heart. Bottum Line: This film was great 20 years ago at 105 min., and it is great now at 140 min. I LOVE this movie, and I know it flies higher than most people know. Helen Slater, Faye Dunaway, Peter O'Toole, Brenda Vaccaro, Hart Bochner, and every one else on the film have every right to be proud of this masterpiece! Supergirl is a true Superhero.

---

68 out of 83 people found the following review useful:
"I am Kara of ARGO city, daughter of Alura and Zor-El, and I don't scare easily.", 2 June 2003
Author: TxMike from Houston, Tx, USA, Earth

I am surprised at the high percentage of very low votes for this movie, SUPERGIRL. While it is by no means a great movie, it IS a good film which makes a comic book story come to life. Helen Slater was only 19 when she played Supergirl and it is hard to imagine a better choice. She is pretty and innocent, but has a fine figure and very athletic legs, very believable as Superman's cousin, come to Earth to return the omegahedron to her society, while Superman is on self-imposed exile. For a 1984 film the production values are very high, not one wire is shown in the scenes where Supergirl flies, unlike Superman IV which is very poor in comparison. And, except for the drawn-out ending, is paced very nicely. I have the director's cut, which is 2 hours and 13 minutes of film, and another 5 or 6 minutes of credits.

Faye Dunnaway is also excellent as the archrival, evil sorceress. To me that is the best type of role for her. The DVD has a remarkably good video transfer and is an altogther fun movie, for fans of the Super series of comic book characters.

And, at 1:45 into the film, several newly-introduced Honda Sabre motorcycles were escorting Dunnaway's car.

---

96 out of 141 people found the following review useful:
A Beautifully written archetype which has yet to face criticisms it deserves..., 3 March 2004

Author: TruPretender from Sundance, Utah

Archetypes are written in all kinds of stories. Comedies, Dramas, Suspenses, Horror films, even documentaries. This was such a film written at the best archetypal pace and yet, has validity and stands on it's own as a Superman film. Supergirl was one of the best ideas to hit the big screen. The Superman formula had been worn very thin by the egregious Superman III, and the world needed a new style and direction of the series. Alas, this film was conceived, with the best special effects crew and a cast that could take home the Oscars like Lord of the Rings: Return of the King in a limousine on a gravel driveway. But the film was not well received, because many believed it to be a bad film and criticized it with out even seeing it.

The film, a Superhero's story, is about Kara-El, Superman's cousin, who must go to earth and save mankind from a witch who is going to take over the world, to save millions and most importantly, to do what's right. Very major events take place and important life lessons are learned.

The film is not only a great film of Superhero wonder and mystique, it is a completely written archetypal story with wit, charm, and heart to it. The story begins in the inner space where a city has been built to store all the citizens that survived the Krypton explosion. This is where not only the movie, but the archetype begins. With the biblical dressed people of ArgoCity, and the people whom inhabit the story. then, the magical symbol for eternity is introduced as an omegahedron. It is lost by a young Kara, who is introduced as the soon to be Supergirl. This is where our both heroin and initiate is introduced. She loses the omegahedron and must go to earth to retrieve it. From here we are taken on the famous dual journey: The Journey of physical sanctity, but also the journey of self discovery. When Kara goes to earth and becomes Supergirl-Woman of steel, she is naive to all the ways of earth, and is new to all the ways of technology. This is buttressed by her bracelet she carries with her to help her track the omegahedron, which brings us to our next archetype. Selena is a power hungry witch who wants no more than to rule the world. This is not just your average villain, but with needs and clauses to be treated like a person, but knows not how to obtain these things. This gives Selena great depth to add to her fueling anger towards mankind for not getting her what she wants. There are characters all over the place symbolizing the archetype of the accomplice or friend who helps the heroin through the beautiful but difficult journey. Then you have the mentor of the story, zaltar, the founder of Argocity and the one who is paying for Kara's mistake by sending himself to the phantom zone. This is a powerful moment of truth and justice when he and Kara are in the archetypal moment in the movie where the heroin and the mentor are faced with death and crossroads and must come through new people-all done greatly and masterly in the frighteningly tense phantom zone scene which Kara displays great courage in the face of death. Finally the archetypal battle of the villain and hero ends with the villain in white and getting a comeuppance of great justice to the hero. Then the hero returns home knowing that she is a new person and has learned both lessons of life and lessons about herself. And in the perfect archetypal ending, she enters the inner space zone through water-symbolizing the cleansing of her soul and mind.

So one sees, Supergirl has much to be praised about being a Superhero film with terrific acting and a great cast, but a script that seems to be dumped on the most. Everyone attacks the script but does anyone really think about it? IT is a very intelligently written script about finding out what you can do and looking inside yourself to see the beauty within. All attackers of the writing if this greatly done archetype masterpiece will one day have their comeuppance like the villain Selena does. And one day this film will, I believe, receive the best treatment for which is so rightly deserves. Helen Slater, Faye Dunaway, Peter O Toole, Jeannot Szwarc, Jerry Goldsmith, and Ilya Salkind all did their absolute best to make sure that this film is a thrilling experience, and I think they have done their job. Plus all the rest of the cast and crew which did their time and effort to make this works. It does. A Great Film. 9/10

---

56 out of 65 people found the following review useful:
If you know the facts, you will see how enjoyable this film is..., 24 April 2002
Author: eve6kicksass@hotmail.com from Harrisonburg, VA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Title: SUPERGIRL Rating (Theatrical Version): *1/2 (out of 5) Rating (International Version): ***1/2 (out of 5) Rating (Extended Director's Cut): **** (out of 5)

There have been many films that, when originally released, have been spit on and throughly trashed by the critics and audience; some of these films have developed into cult classics. However, I have never seen a film that has had the first characteristic and then eventually go beyond all expectations, raising a few eyebrows and almost completely overcome all the negativity that had been thrown at it in the past. SUPERGIRL is the first film that I have given ever that respect to and it's a real shame that it wasn't released the way it should have been. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the first two SUPERMAN films, and yet I really don't like comics in general. However, the original SUPERMAN film released in 1978, was respected by those who don't even care for superhero and comic book movies and it, to an extent, had started a phenomenon in terms of bringing more superheroes and comic book characters to the screen. When SUPERMAN III was released in 1983, however, it had practically ruined the concept and the audience had retreated back into their normal lives when Christopher Reeve, wisely, retired from the role. One year later, SUPERGIRL was released by the same producers (Alexander and Ilya Salkind) and trashed almost twice as much as SUPERMAN III was. Needless to say, when I saw it on television in the early 90's, I trashed it to and thought it was worse than SUPERMAN III, as well as PART IV, and looked at it nothing more than ridiculous and amateurish. In 2000, however, my opinion of SUPERGIRL was completely changed. Being an avid DVD collector (and a particular fan of audio commentaries), I decided to give SUPERGIRL a second chance for curiosity's sake and, as a result, this movie actually made me realize not to never judge a film again for just for what it shows and presents. The DVD version (by Anchor Bay) has two versions of the film...and neither one is the original 105 min. version! They contain the international version (which runs 124 min.) and a never-before-seen Director's Cut that ran a whopping 138 min! The latter version contained scenes that have not only never been released before, but have only recently surfaced in a London vault with the warning "Do Not Use." For the very first time, director Jeannot Szwarc has released his complete vision of the film, complete with a genuinely surprising audio commentary which touches base on his intentions before and during the making of the film from the very beginning. The facts (you can call them SPOILERS if you want) are simply these:

1. Christopher Reeve was going to be in it and be a mentor of sorts to Supergirl in one scene where she arrives on Earth, as well as be in another scene when Supergirl eventually saves him upon losing all his powers. Due to the failure of the third SUPERMAN movie, however, Reeve completely bowed out of the role due to his blaming of the Salkinds' for how they screwed up the entire franchise by making the third film campy and put more empahsis on comedy, which simply didn't work. Ironically, that's exactly how many critics and audiences in 1984 thought that SUPERGIRL was awful.

2. Director Jeannot Szwarc reveals that, from the beginning, that he wanted SUPERGIRL to stand on its own and be nothing more (or less) that what it was; in other words, he made it so it would pretend to be nothing else than itself. He had to contend with many revisions of the script by David Odell, for not only production reasons, but for studio reasons: Warner Bros declined to release it (again due to the failure of S. III) and it was then picked up by then-unknown Tri-Star pictures, who had chopped up the film to where, when it was released in the U.S., had a lot of incoherency and confusing development (in both plot and characters), and thus all but completely trashed Szwarc's vision and intentions.

3. The result made SUPERGIRL virtually ignored by the U.S. audience, failing miserably at the box office and with every major critic promoting it as garbage; my favorite critic, Leonard Maltin called it "a superdrag: dull, long, and heavy-handed." All the well-repected actors in it were condemned as being "wasted" and "laughable"; this is especially true of Faye Dunaway, as the villianess bent on obtaining world dominition. As for its status today, hardly anyone remembers it, and a few people I've talked to maintain it doesn't even exist! That all changed with the 2000 DVD release by Anchor Bay, which I had viewed only recently.

I truly believe that when people watch either the International or Director's Cut, that they will agree with me that it would have been much better---and maybe even a success---if released that way in 1984. Presented in a digitally mastered version by THX, the film matures on almost every level, beginning with Jerry Goldsmith's score being nothing short of sensationsal, giving the film what John Williams gave to the original SUPERMAN, but what's different is that Goldsmith's actually complements the heroine's qualities by being lyrical and high-spirited. Then there is Alan Hume's gorgeous cinematography, which reaches its zenith in a wonderful sequence where Supergirl does an "aerial ballet" when she discovers her powers; it supports the idea that her character is innocent and in utter awe with her discovery (may I also state that this sequence was cut entirely when first released). Finally, because of the director's commentary, my original opinions of the performances have been erased; he states that his cast chose to be in the film primarily because it was a change-of-pace for them and all they wanted was, as the director wanted as well, just to "have fun." That, combined with the additional footage bringing the full character development back into focus, the film goes beyond all expectations. The key to enjoying this film, bear in mind, is to not take it too seriously (which many critics tend to do when reviewing a movie). Despite all the praise I've given to this new version, the film still does have flaws, particularly in the writing department, though you do come to realize that is not necessarily the fault of the screenwriter when considering the sequence of events that lead to the film being made. I encourage anyone to take a chance to check this film out because it really is very enjoyable and a lot of fun; beware of the old video release and TV versions, however! E-mail me if you want to express your agreements (or disagreements) with me.

---

65 out of 85 people found the following review useful:
Delightful!, 3 June 2003

Author: HeartMonger from Mind of the Films

Sharply done, often pleasing effort from the Salkind/Warner Bros. troupe. Much of a relief after the disastrous Superman III, Supergirl is Kal-El's cousin from the inner space community of ArgoCity. After a mistake goes awry within the peaceful walls of the city of Argo, Kara(Helen Slater, in probably her best performance.) must go to earth and retrieve the omegahedron, a power source that ArgoCity needs to live. Thus she is transformed to Supergirl-Women of Steel! What she does not understand at first, is that the magical source fell into the hands of the chaos hungry sorceress Selena, who proceeds to filch it, and take over the small town of Midvale, Il. It's up to Supergirl to save the day and return the omegahedron to ArgoCity where it belongs. Can she do it? State of the art special effects, especially the wire work, and FABulous acting boost this to be one of Hollywood's best efforts. Urbane settings and Mundane characters increase this. Jerry Goldsmith's beautiful and imaginative score is felicitous and strong. Like Superman/Superman II, the greats were hired to take this film flight: Faye Dunaway(Network), Peter O'Toole(Laurence of Arabia), Brenda Vaccaro(Midnight Cowboy-Once is Not Enough), Maureen Teefy(Fame), Mia Farrow(Rosemary's Baby), Peter Cook(Bedazzled), and of course, Helen Slater, turns in such good acting that one is right there in the front row shouting for her to win! win! win! All in all, an underrated film(After the Warner Bros. dropping it fiasco) and a true diamond in the blockbuster rough! ***** out of *****!

---

62 out of 91 people found the following review useful:
So boys it looks like you didn't know girls could fly, 5 October 2003

Author: Angelique McCall from United States

The only known heroes in the days were Superman, Batman, etc. It seemed like Superman was the only one fit to fly. Then man invented airplanes, then man has been in office as president for over a century. It seems like we have had enough of men thinking they could fly over tall buildings like twin towers. Well cruisin back to 1984 we have Supergirl and the woman who plays her role is outrageous and perfect for the role at that. No one shows such drama and character for the part. In fact I suggest we remake the movie and cast someone else to appeal to this new generation. The supergirl movie appealed to me cause I grew up as a child in the 80s. I think it was the most wonderful movie to escape to and to really believe in women as heroes, for example modern day police officers really do protect you and they are women, so supergirl was like my hero in the 80s and Faye Dunway did an excellent job as the wicked witch. I liked the part when she gave the construction worker a spell beer and he fell into her haunted house.

The purity and essence of supergirl is almost unattainable by any other person fit to play her role. It is true and realistic that supergirl would save the world from some evil spell caster who wants to wreck the world.

I think this movie is far underrated on IMDB and should get a perfect 10.

---

37 out of 43 people found the following review useful:
Glad I'm not the only one, 15 April 2004
Author: MovieRotweiler from Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England

I guess I was 7 or 8 when my parents took me to the cinema for the first time. They picked Supergirl as something fun and unthreatening. I have been hooked on film ever since! Supergirl is a hugely under-rated movie, and while I can take on board some of the negative comments you read here, I also think they're a bit harsh. Come on people (you know who you are), it's a fantasy film! If it played the same as Superman (another great), there would be no point in making it in the first place. Sure the magic angle is slightly odd, but what the hell, it's a fun film which doesn't take itself too seriously, but doesn't go in for over the top slapstick either (take heed Richard Lester!!). And of course the effects are a little dated, it is 20 years old after all (though many still look great). Jerry Goldsmith's score it beautiful and lyrical, as it should be, becoming triumphantly heroic when it needs to (The main theme is tremendous, even with the eighties electronic whooshes and eagle squarks). Helen Slater is gorgeous in the lead role, and considering this was her first major role, she does a commendable job. Then there's Miss Dunaway: first rate as always-you can almost see the scenery going down her throat, but that's part of the charm of the character. All the actors come off well, and if you ignore some bits and pieces (there's still some huge plot holes even in the Directors Cut!) you should have a great time. It would be interesting to see a remake that perhaps didn't stray so far from the source mythology (was the omegahedron in the comics?), but on the other hand, the eighties was a different time, and perhaps today's climate (whether the world could use a super-hero or not) is not right to relaunch the poor girl to Earth. One of my all time favourites, and I'm glad to see so many other fans on the IMDB. Let's lobby Anchor Bay for an official Region 2 version. My TV can't broadcast NTSC signals, so have to watch it in black & white, or in jerky (but colour) vision on a slow laptop. Peace. Out.

---

33 out of 37 people found the following review useful:
A considerable improvement over the Superman movies, 14 September 2006

Author: Ronn A. Mann

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The way some people see Supergirl is the perfect demonstration that feminists have been right all along: a woman does have to work twice as hard just to earn half the pay and a tenth the respect of a man.

The double standard is astounding; the same people who can watch Superman reverse time by reversing Earth's rotation without so much as blinking, are the same ones who complain that they never explained where Supergirl got her outfit. They see nothing wrong with a depowered Superman who walks all the way to the North Pole without food, water or so much as a scarf, where he recovers his powers without explanation. Then they turn around and complain that Supergirl wasn't wet when she came out of the lake. When the depowered Superman discovers the world has been taken over by a superpowered madman, he walks to the North Pole. He doesn't run, or jog, or ride a dogsled or anything; he walks there. When Supergirl arrives to Earth, she decides that having a base of operations, sleeping on a comfortable bed, and eating real food are better than sleeping in the woods eating crickets. Guess who is accused of not showing enough desperation in the face of adversity and who isn't.

Most of the flaws that people see in Supergirl exist only in their imagination. For instance, Supergirl's costume. The movie clearly shows that Supergirl can change the shape of her outfit at will. She does it when you first see her in her Supergirl outfit, then when she changes to Linda, then when she flies out the window to confront the invisible monster, etc., etc. So why is it that people complain about the wrong thing (the first appearance of her Supergirl outfit) rather than the right one (her unexplained ability to change her clothes)? Because they were not interested in watching the movie, they were only interested in finding flaws in it. But how can she change her clothes anyway? Let's see, she's a superpowered being who can move at nearly the speed of light, who comes from a civilization several hundred years ahead of ours and who wasn't exactly wearing clothes bought at Kmart to begin with. Maybe she uses her speed. Maybe her clothes can chance their shape. Who knows? By the way, is there anyone over six years old who believes that Peter Parker could've made such a stunning costume by himself when it took a small army of designers and seamstresses to make the ones used in the movie? Of course not. Is there anyone who cares? Of course not, it's just a freaking costume. Oddly enough, this reasoning, though perfectly valid when applied to Spidey, is never used with Supergirl.

Another complaint is that the movie never explains how Supergirl knows so much about Superman. Er, did anyone miss the fact that half the movie is spent with Selena chasing Supergirl all over the universe using a device from Argo City? Do I need to remind anyone that Kryptonians aren't exactly Amish?

Some people claim the movie has bad dialogues. Like when Supergirl asks a thug "why are you doing this?" and he responds "that's just the way we are." Let's assume for a moment the apparently preposterous notion that what characters say should be the result of their intelligence, knowledge, independent thought process, plus the context of the dialogue. So here's the scene: two thugs confront Supergirl with the intention of "having fun" with her. She easily throws one of them away and asks him why he is doing this (this is the first time she's ever met a "bad guy"). And what exactly do people expect his response to be? Shakespeare? A 2-hour dissertation on the psychological origins of his motivations? A one-liner so full of charm and wit that would make Jon Stewart insane with envy? This guy is neither an English professor nor a rocket scientist and the only things in his mind were the curvier parts of Supergirl's anatomy. He's not interested in impressing anyone or sounding witty. He simply says the first thing that comes to his mind, and what he says is pretty much within the ballpark of what you'd expect from him given the circumstances. The problem is that people are too used to characters in other superhero movies who are nothing more than a mouth and an attitude, plus a collection of puns and one-liners waiting to happen, where the idea of characterization is to have a guy yell "kneel before Zod!" every ten minutes.

But the silliest complaint is that she joins a school instead of going bananas trying to find the Omegahedron. Let's see, when you're looking for a needle in a haystack, what would be more productive: to be smart and methodical or to run around like a headless chicken? Supergirl chooses the first option. She finds herself a comfortable base of operations (where she can easily find all the information she needs about Earth), where she hides during the day, using the night as a cover while she searches. But why would she hide? Because when you're searching for a dangerous weapon, the last thing you'd want to do is let its current owners know you're looking for them. They'll either hide or sneak up on you. Once again, people are so used to stupid superhero behavior (e.g., Superman struggling to pull the Kryptonite necklace over his head instead of just bending over) that they're unable to recognize the one time when someone uses her brain.

In the end, there's nothing that Supergirl does wrong that Superman doesn't do ten times worse, yet all the disastrous flaws in Superman are either ignored or dismissed as nice little quirks that give the movie a lovely homemade feeling while every tiny detail in Supergirl is regarded as a crime against humanity. Is that sexism? You bet.

---

30 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
Beautiful Classic Hard To Beat, 12 January 2000
Author: Carrey from Perth, Australia

Apart from the witchcraft, I LOVE this movie!

This was the first time I ever saw Helen Slater, and rightaway I knew she was the most beautiful lady in the world! (Sorry ladies!)

I think there are some classic lines that have been overlooked: I remember when the Tractor went wild in Midvale, and Linda/Supergirl was searching for a place to change into her costume, she spied the Ladies' Room, and dashed toward it at super-speed, plowing into a woman who was just coming out. Linda apologized, "Sorry, I'm in a rush!" and shot inside. The woman looked wry. "I know what you mean!"

Perhaps Zaltar (Peter O'Toole) wasn't as important as he could have been. Although I thought Faye Dunaway was perfect as Selena (a little type-casting courtesy of Mommie Dearest), I prefer to wonder what would have happened if Zaltar had been just a little more complex (he's an artist, after all!) and a little more selfish, and actually followed through with his plans to see Outer Space with the assistance of the Omegahedron.

Then he might have been the villain of the piece, and the most dangerous kind of villain: the villain an audience can sympathize with. Then the audience would have been torn between wanting Zaltar to succeed, and wanting Kara/Supergirl to stop him before the loss of the Omegahedron destroys Argo City.

Oh! And I would've liked to see how Argo City was torn away more or less whole from Krypton as the planet detonated, and wound up in Inner Space, trapped in a warp that only Kal-El's little spaceship was equipped to navigate and exit.

I don't think it's over for Supergirl, her story could be REtold (a la Batman), but I'd only be interested in a remake if the filmmakers would remain true to the style of THIS movie (Supergirl (1984), rather than opting for a trendy, dark, angst-ridden "hero" (I use the term loosely) in a demented action "adventure". I miss the bright, cheerful style of the old Superman comics, from the 50's, 60's and 70's, and I'd love to see that back on the big screen, like Superman The Movie and Superman II, and . . . naturally, Supergirl - The First Adventure.

This is a beautiful, dream-like jewel of a movie, a real Pink Panther (I refer, of course, to the diamond).

That breath-taking, emotional moment as Supergirl arrives on Earth, and discovers her powers and her new environment, in my humble opinion, is unmatched in all the Super-movies.

Jerry Goldsmith's score, especially the Supergirl March and the Love Theme are stirring and moving respectively, and easily equal to John Williams' contributions to the Superman movies. I have Jerry's score on CD (thanks to Silva Screen Records) and the Supergirl Main Theme is my Favorite Movie Theme of all time.

(Superman was and is my hero, Superman II (1980) was THE defining movie of my youth, and I can probably sing you the entire score to Superman III, but I love the Supergirl themes more.)

And if a widescreen, remastered version of this movie ever becomes available "Down Under" , I want to see it!

---

---

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history