Suffergirl

Above, Supergirl (2026). DC Entertainment.

Looking for ways to save money? 

Well, there's one suggestion: Avoid seeing the new Supergirl movie.

At least that's the verdict of Lou Aguilar at The American Spectator. He posted a review of Supergirl so that you won't have to see it. He dubs it as Suffergirl.

He begins with:

I didn’t intend to see Supergirl. I knew it would be infantile, dark, and woke — three of my biggest kryptonite rocks — and I had a book to finish, already late due to a medical trauma. But a critic buddy called me with an extra screening pass, and I wanted to see him. Now, the reason he had a ticket for me tells you all you need to know about the box-office prospects for Supergirl, and the mentality of Hollywoke, what’s left of it.

My liberal friend has a like-minded 12-year-old daughter who loved the Sam Raimi Spider-Man pictures. She took one look at the Supergirl trailer depicting a depressed, drunk, nihilistic heroine and told her dad she had no interest in it. If the moviemakers can’t lure an impressionable pre-girlboss into the theater, just imagine all the boys and young men the film will attract. 

So, I sat there in a soon-to-be-empty seat, hoping to at least enjoy some mindless superhero action worthy of a $170-million production, based on a comic-book universe I’d loved as a kid. And I didn’t even get that. The film is dark, all right, but not just in thematic mood. It’s so underlit, it makes Night of the Living Dead look like The Wizard of Oz by comparison.

To read more, go here. 

'Supergirl' Pre-release Tracking Looks Disastrously Bad

Above, the classic Supergirl by Jim Mooney.

When James Gunn's Superman was released, I was not impressed. The costume was horrible and the story was not interesting enough to me to head to the local theater.

It appears his Supergirl is underwhelming people as well and is on track to be a disappointing flop.

I enjoyed the previous Superman movies, you know, the Henry Cavill ones. I wasn't too thrilled over his costume either, but I liked the movies and his portrayal. DC Entertainment decided to jettison that series and do another reboot. 

Above, the first appearance of Supergirl by Curt Swan and Al Plastino.

Fox News has posted an article on how Supergirl is not looking too promising. 

They begin it with:

DC Studios, housed at Warner Bros. Pictures, has tried to revamp its film and release strategies under the direction of James Gunn. Gunn, who was responsible for the "Guardians of the Galaxy" series, joined DC in 2022. His first big movie, made to jump-start the new DC direction, was 2025's "Superman." While not exactly a flop, it was a box-office disappointment. And Gunn himself may have been partially to blame.

Though the film avoided politics almost entirely, for some inexplicable reason, Gunn himself brought it up in pre-release promotional interviews.

"Yes, it’s about politics," Gunn explained in a story from The Times of London. "But on another level, it’s about morality.

"I mean, ‘Superman’ is the story of America – an immigrant that came from other places and populated the country," he continued. "But for me, it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost."

"It’s about human kindness, and obviously, there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them," he concluded.

Sure enough, "Superman" brought in substantially less money, before and after adjusting for inflation, than "Man of Steel." And pre-release tracking for the latest entry in Gunn's new DC Studios series, "Supergirl," is tracking to do substantially worse.

To read the full article, go here. 

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" (Ultimate Edition)

When Batman V Superman: The Dawn of Justice (2016) came out, I posted a review of it and gave it a "B" grade. 

I bought the "ultimate edition" on Blu-ray as we are in a heat wave and needed something to watch while indoors. I also bought Man of Steel, which I had never seen. The Blu-ray has the extended version along with the theatrical version.

My opinion on Batman V Superman has risen a bit. I'll give it an "A-" now. That's for the theatrical version. 

However, the much longer (30 minutes longer) ultimate edition did not help the movie in my eyes. It muddled things more. I kept wondering, "What's the point?" I had forgotten that Jimmy Olsen was shot in the head and killed in Africa by terrorists. That was a dumb move. So much for "Superman's pal" in this DC movie universe. 

To date, I think I liked Justice League (2017) of the current crop of DC Comics movies the most. It's funny I haven't posted a review of it. I have the theatrical version. Maybe I'll get around to it eventually. 

For future viewings, I'll stick with the theatrical version.

"Man of Steel" (2013)

When Man of Steel came out in 2013, I heard so many complaints about it (the Superman costume was one of them, but it was the least of the issues) that I didn't bother to go see it.

However, since we have been in the midst of a heat wave, I decided to buy it on Blu-ray along with Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016). It was the "ultimate edition". I saw Batman vs. Superman when it came out and enjoyed it even though it also had some things longtime Superman and Batman fans did quibble about. More on that movie in another blog post.

On Man of Steel, it was an interesting re-telling of the Superman mythos. 

According to Wikipedia:

With the imminent destruction of Krypton, their home planet, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife seek to preserve their race by sending their infant son to Earth. The child's spacecraft lands at the farm of Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha (Diane Lane) Kent, who name him Clark and raise him as their own son. Though his extraordinary abilities have led to the adult Clark (Henry Cavill) living on the fringe of society, he finds he must become a hero to save those he loves from a dire threat.

It was the above, but it was primarily Superman vs. General Zod. The fights between the two seemed overly long, but at least it was not a silly cartoon as Superman: The Movie (1978) was. There was very little humor in it and played with deadly seriousness. I like Henry Cavill's Superman/Clark Kent much more than the late Christopher Reeve's. Reeve's Superman was okay, but his Clark Kent was too buffoonish. Cavill's Superman/Clark Kent were more like George Reeves during the Adventures of Superman 1951 season.

The special effects were far superior than in Superman: The Movie. 

As things turned out, the Superman costume didn't bother me as much as thought it would, although the cape was too long and dragged on the ground. Long capes may work for Batman, but not Superman.

All in all, Man of Steel was a more satisfying movie than the 1978 Superman: The Movie.

I give the movie an A. 

DC Comics: Why No Curt Swan Superman Merchandise?

Above, a Swan Superman digital sculpture by Tony Cipriano and original art by Curt Swan..

A few days ago, Curt Swan fan Tony Cipriano posted at the Curt Swan Facebook fan page the above digital sculpture of a statuette of Superman based on an image Swan drew for the Superman Annual #7.

He wrote:

Hi Guys.. A few days ago, a member posted this artwork and was hoping DC would do it as a licensed statue. I have also always drooled over this piece of art form the Superman Annual #7... I began this digital sculpt this week, so I thought I'd share it. It's still rough, but I thought it would be fun to see it in 3 dimensions. I've wanted that statue on my shelf since I first saw that cover as a kid. Being a huge Swan fan, I've always wondered why there hasn't been more product based on his DEFINITIVE take on the Man of Steel!

Exactly! Older fans of Swan and Superman (like myself) would definitely buy such a statuette based on Swan's drawing.

Above, Superman Annual no. 7.

Other fans are also perplexed as to why DC Comics (or DC Entertainment) hasn't put out any licensed products based on Swan's definitive take on Superman.

One wrote:

I've always wondered the same thing myself. DC seems to have given practically no props to Swan in issuing collectibles based on his quintessential Superman!

And another said:

DC pretty much wants to wipe out it's history. That's the history us older fans care about. I know I'd love a statue like this.

In response to the post above:

Which makes no sense. Look at all the success they have had with the Adam West Batman 66 stuff. Same fan base that would love Curt Swan related products and not to mention George Reeves Superman related products.

Above, Noel Neill's George Reeves Superman statuette. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Indeed! The late Noel Neill, the original Lois Lane, had in her possession a George Reeves Superman statuette. It was on display at her celebration of life services in November in Metropolis, Illinois. Reproductions of this would be nice to have!

Maybe DC Comics (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) will see this post and get on the ball and issue Swan-based (and some based on George Reeves) Superman merchandise starting with the above statuettes. Fans are eager to snap them up!

Curt Swan's Birthday

Above, Curt Swan sketching Superman.

Today marks what would have been Superman artist Curt Swan's 97th birthday.

Unfortunately, he passed away unexpectedly in 1996. He is considered by many (including me) the "definitive" Superman artist.

He also was assigned to illustrate the Legion of Super-Heroes, Lois Lane, Superboy, Jimmy Olsen, Aquaman, Batman and many others by DC Comics over the course of his career.

Above, two pages of Swan's Superman pencil work.

According to Wikipedia:

Douglas Curtis "Curt" Swan (February 17, 1920 – June 17, 1996) was an American comic book artist. The artist most associated with Superman during the period fans call the Silver Age of comic books, Swan produced hundreds of covers and stories from the 1950s through the 1980s.

Thankfully, I own a page that Swan drew that was inked by Murphy Anderson during the early 1970s.

"Suicide Squad"

My former roomie, Jes and I went to go see Suicide Squad this afternoon. We picked the 3D version.

The online synopsis of the plot is as follows:

Figuring they're all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.

I never read the comic book from DC Comics, so I went into the theater not really knowing what to expect (Jes picked the movie, anyway).

Frankly, outside of the 3D and special effects, I wasn't really too impressed. Sure, the movie had lots of action, but it seemed like the set-up of getting the baddies together for the top-secret mission was rushed and it wasn't all that clear what the objective was.

Ben Affleck had a cameo appearance as Batman. Supposedly, The Flash was also in it, but apparently his scene(s) zipped by at super-speed so I missed him. Superman was mentioned a number of times. Jared Leto had to be the oddest Joker I've ever seen. Will Smith was, typically, Will Smith. He really didn't bring much to this movie.

About the only thing that caused us any real excitement was when Jes almost had to perform CPR on me as I just about choked on a plain M & M candy.

I did like Margot Robbie's take as Harley Quinn. She also was pleasant to the eyes. Outside of that, Suicide Squad was a yawner to me.

My grade: B-.