The Bright Red Line This Critic Won’t Cross
Variety's veteran scribe under fire for 'Supergirl' pan plus personal attack
Hollywood in Toto began as the “Right Take on Entertainment.” ’nuff said.
There were still certain rules in place from the beginning – nearly 12 years ago.
- No gossipy fluff – Justin Bieber’s new tattoo is shocking!
- No rumors – This actor could be the next 007!
- And, most importantly, no attacks on a star’s physical appearance
Yes, Michael Moore doesn’t have a slender build. I’ll leave it that. I’ve still been highly critical of him in large and small ways. I never insulted his size, wardrobe or similar elements.
That was never the plan. And it won’t change anytime soon.
Of course, some stars and starlets are more appealing than others. Some dress down for roles, or scruffy themselves up for this reason or that.
It’s not my job to judge them. More specifically, it’s not appropriate to include those descriptions in a movie review.
That got a critic in hot water just a few years ago. A Variety critic claimed that Carey Mulligan may not have been alluring enough to play the lead in “Promising Young Woman.” Said critic publicly apologized.
So did Variety.
Now, another Variety critic is catching heat for his review. Veteran Owen Gleiberman scorched “Supergirl,” saying it was one of the worst scripts in recent memory.
That hyperbole got called out, but the bigger issue to me is how he described the film’s heroine, played by Milly Alcock. The star looked like “Kristy McNichol crossed with the Feral Kid from ‘The Road Warrior.'”
That’s not a compliment. It’s also unkind and unnecessary. The Feral Kid was presented as odd and physically different.
The comment also doesn’t shed any light on the film or Alcock’s performance.
It’s just … mean.
Gleiberman remains an excellent critic, even if his Trump Derangement Syndrome occasionally gets the better of him. That “Supergirl” review is not his finest hour.
Critics in toto should review the films, not the actors’ on-screen appeal.
I wonder what he’ll say about the odyssey? The Trojan Horse is no thoroughbred?
Humans possess an aesthetic sense because they are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 3:11). The appreciation for beauty in nature, art, and music is not merely a human construct but a reflection of the Creator’s attributes.
Psalm 27:4 describes the ultimate pursuit of life as gazing “upon the beauty of the LORD.” Therefore, beauty is not superficial; it is a pointer to the divine.
The Bible establishes that beauty in art is not merely decorative but theological, serving as a primary means to reflect God’s nature and glorify the Creator. While modern culture often separates art from morality or utility, Scripture presents art as a Spirit-empowered vocation where skill, beauty, and truth converge.
Ultimately, the Bible teaches that beauty in art is a language of worship. It is a tangible way to participate in God’s creative nature, transforming ordinary materials into echoes of eternal truth. As Proverbs 31:30 reminds us regarding personal beauty, so too for art: charm and shock value are fleeting, but art that fears the Lord and reflects His character has enduring worth
Did I miss something? Critic roasted a bad script. Fair
It wasn’t a good movie, but Helen Slater was very pretty and sweet in her movie.
Love me some Toto but you are among friends and don’t have to signal virtue here. And in a world where are culture creators are de-beautifing our culture it’s ok to call that out. Especially when the actress in question turned herself into political platform. Also? its kinda a spot on description of how she looked in the film.
I see Chaka from the Land of the Lost. Almost every time I see I photograph of Allcock. Allcock – also an issue??
I try not to read TDS-addled work, so I’ll skip Gleiberman’s review. But I don’t think it’s entirely off-base for a critic to comment on actors’ physical appearance as it relates to how they come across on screen. Surely part of the tepid reaction to “Supergirl” is based on the main character intentionally being given an off-putting, drunken, slovenly look (at least in the previews — along with the rest of the world, I haven’t actually seen the movie) that seems a little feral compared to how people seem to generally prefer their superheroes to look. More broadly, like it or not, it seems a little unrealistic to claim that how actors look isn’t a big part of how they get cast and how they draw in audiences. Often, but not always, it relates to physical beauty. Other times, it seems more related to the “character” of an actor’s face that makes him or her “likable.” Or menacing. Or comic.
Yup.
Caery Mulligan is a babe. Certainly alluring enough in my book.