Unfortunately, the Salkinds seemed to be at a point where their time at making "Super" movies was waning. Supergirl came out on the wake of the lukewarm Superman III. Other than another Superman/Kal-el sequel, the Super series of the time needed some re-boot or re-boost. Supergirl seemed like the answer, but to no avail.The good: Helen Slater in the title role seemed to bring to life Kal-el's cousin and fellow Krypton denizen, Kara with grace and natural beauty. She looked real good in the outfit and performed the feats of the character real well.It was good to see Marc Mclure reprise his Jimmy Olsen role to tie this to the Superman franchise of the time. Christopher Reeve declined for a proposed Superman cameo, so Olsen had to do for a crossover.The bad: a story that drags. We had these big names that participated: Faye Dunaway; and Peter O'Toole; plus a newcomer that brought Supergirl to life gracefully. But great players are but a small part of a bigger picture which is the story. We had these fantastic players, set against fantastic backdrops, but we went through a slow story hoping it would pick up.It never did.This was Helen Slater's shot at a movie series and super stardom as she did the role beautifully. Tri-star and WB (who regained the rights) didn't want to go forward with the Woman of Steel after its dismal performance denying her that chance. Though she still went on to other roles in Hollywood (and seemed to be successful), this one would've propelled her higher had the movie been written better resulting in bigger audiences.Helen Slater did Supergirl right, hands down. Unfortunately, the writers and everyone else behind the actors didn't do her or the film justice.

This evening I rewatched Supergirl for the first time in years (I saw it in the cinema with my dad when it first came out, and I'd seen it I think once since). Okay, it's cheesy in places. Peter O'Toole hams it up for all he's worth (whilst still managing to look distinctly bored), Simon Ward has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it role with a 'what the hell am I doing here' look on his face, and Faye Dunaway was - for me - miscast (although she seemed to be having fun). Some of the effects don't exactly look great, although I can't hold that against it - the film was made over 30 years ago.But Helen Slater was pitch-perfect - and gorgeous - as Supergirl (it's a shame she never got to repeat the role), Hart Bochner was spot-on as the himbo/'dude in distress', David Healy was entertaining as the headmaster, and Peter Cooke (always a favourite of mine) was funny. The Phantom Zone sequences were pretty well done too, and I found the flying effects actually more convincing than those in the Christopher Reeve movies. Overall, it was fun. I'm glad I finally took the time to revisit. And I'm still in love with 1984 Helen Slater. 7.5/10

Only on itself this movie is a mistake of continuity: if the planet Krypton was destroyed, as it is seen in the beginning of Superman, how can there be a city of survivors? The city of Argo miraculously escaped destruction by floating through space as Zaltar invented something as a small but powerful enough ball to create a bubble enveloping the meteorite thus sustaining atmosphere. Yeah...Kara, Superman's cousin, loses this technological marvel sphere and comes to Earth to recover it, having to face a witch who has seized the sphere and uses it to her evil advantage. Helen Slater is very handsome and does her best to play the role of a sweet heroine, but the whole film is compromised by a plot once again stupid and notoriously directed at the female audience with a romance in the middle that adds nothing to the story than to ignite the envy of the witch: notoriously directed at the female audience.PS: Very conveniently, almost at the beginning of the film, a radio broadcast reveals that Superman set out on a mission to a galaxy far away...

4.3 on IMDb almost turned me away from this movie, but now, when I did see it, I'm completely confused by rating so bad. OK, story is full of holes and illogicalities. If I was taking notes during the movie I could write a novel made of all nonsense I noticed. I mean, Kara brings her world to the edge of destruction and goes to Earth to try to make things right, but when she arrives, instead of trying to recover energy source in panic, she enjoys nature and her newfound abilities, flying around like butterfly and acting like child. The witch who gains possession of power source instantly knows what it is and how to use it. She knows about Phantom Zone and how to send Supergirl in it... But to cut long story short, cause there's a bunch of similar crap, this kind of plot holes and nonsense is typical for this kind of movies. If we ignore that flaw, this movie is really beautiful and entertaining, and most of all, it's really well done. It is much better than Superman 2 & 3, and as I hear, infinitely better than Superman 4. Technically speaking, it is better even than original Superman movie, but being 16 years younger that comparison would not be fair, because of accumulated experience in making superhero movies and technology advances. Personally, I do not like Helen Slater too much, but for 19 years old girl in her first serious role she did great job playing Supergirl. Interesting fact is that 30 years later she appears in Supergirl TV series in role of Supergirl's adopted mother. Faye Dunaway nailed role of evil sorceress, which is expected as that kind of role fits her the best. Special effects are fantastic for its time and pretty much believable even for today's viewer. And what is most important, this is definitely the most fun DC movie up to date. I enjoyed all 138 minutes of director's cut and I would love to have it in my collection.8,5/10