Clayface is the latest DC film to grace the big screen, and expectations are high. Following the lukewarm praise for 2025’s Superman and the disdain surrounding Supergirl, many are hoping director James Watkins can pull the DC Universe out of an early grave. But does Clayface deliver the cinematic resurrection DC needs, or is it another unwanted adaptation of a character from its library of villains we actually want to see?
The film follows Matt Hagen (Tom Harries), an aspiring actor whose ambition is matched only by his ego. After sleeping with Mia, the girlfriend of gangster Markos Szabo, Matt learns the hard way that ignoring his best friend’s warnings is a terrible idea. Markos discovers the pair together and brutally disfigures Matt’s face, leaving him looking less like a future Hollywood heartthrob and more like ground beef somebody tried to repair with a sewing kit.
Enter Dr. Caitlyn Corr (Naomi Ackie), a scientist whose nanite treatment promises to repair damaged tissue. Initially, Matt regains his handsome features, but during a red-carpet event, his face begins melting like something straight out of Darkman. Desperate for help, Matt returns to Caitlyn’s laboratory and, because apparently patience isn’t his strong suit, injects himself with all the nanites. Congratulations, Hollywood. You’ve created Clayface.
The story bears a striking resemblance to Todd Phillips’ Joker (2019). Both films explore troubled individuals transforming into DC villains, encouraging audiences to sympathize with people who eventually become monsters. I enjoyed Joker, so this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, Clayface sometimes feels like a movie I’ve already seen, only with considerably more facial reconstruction.
Tom Harries delivers an excellent performance, making Matt’s descent into madness compelling. I found myself rooting for his quest for vengeance, even as he crossed increasingly disturbing lines. Unfortunately, the film takes its sweet time showcasing Clayface’s abilities. We don’t see him truly flex his powers until the final twenty minutes, which feels like a missed opportunity.
When the film finally lets loose, things get weird. There’s a dance-floor sequence I can only describe as the “Clayface dance.” They didn’t call it that, but that’s what I’m calling it. Deal with it. The scene feels like High School Musical wandered onto the wrong movie set.
The climax also feels rushed. Matt’s confrontation with Markos should be the emotional payoff to his transformation, yet I nearly forgot about the gangster before their showdown. That’s not ideal when revenge is supposedly driving your protagonist’s entire journey.
Mike Flanagan’s screenplay brings welcome body horror and psychological tension, but despite its R rating, Clayface occasionally feels like a PG-13 horror movie wearing an R-rated disguise. Horror is my favorite genre, and I wish the filmmakers had committed more fully to it. The idea of a man literally losing his identity is genuinely disturbing, and the film works best when it embraces that nightmare.
Then there’s that damn dance scene. I swear James Gunn walked onto the set, read the screenplay, and demanded, “You know what this needs? A fucking dance number.” Maybe I’m wrong, but the scene absolutely screams James Gunn. It feels like somebody accidentally spliced footage from another movie into the final cut.
One of the film’s biggest strengths is Gotham City. It’s grimy, oppressive, and perpetually miserable. The sun barely shines, and the streets look like they’ve been rained on since the Nixon administration. Gotham should feel like a place where hope goes to die.
But I’ve figured out the secret behind this version of Gotham: Gotham City is England. Yeah, I said it: the gloomy skies, the constant rain, the overwhelming misery. I’m onto you, James Watkins. You can’t fool me. You slapped a Batman sign on England and expected us not to notice.
All jokes aside, the setting gives the film a genuinely oppressive atmosphere that complements Matt’s transformation.
So, is Clayface good? Absolutely. In fact, it’s the best DCU film I’ve seen to date under James Gunn’s watchful eyes.
Is it perfect? Hell no. The story feels familiar, the climax is rushed, and the bizarre scene in Caitlyn’s apartment makes little sense. Meanwhile, parts of the nightclub sequence feel straight out of Jim Carrey’s The Mask. For a film about a man who can transform his face into practically anything, the similarities are hard to ignore.
Despite these flaws, I enjoyed it. Harries delivers a compelling performance, the horror works when the film commits to it, and Gotham looks fantastic. More importantly, Clayface proves that DC villains can carry their own films without Batman swooping in to steal the spotlight.
Does it need a sequel? No. Not every successful movie needs to become a franchise. However, I’d love to see Clayface appear in a future Batman film. His potential is undeniable, and watching him face the Dark Knight could be something special.
Ultimately, Clayface occasionally struggles with its own identity, but unlike its unfortunate protagonist, the film pulls itself together. Clayface is a disfigured success for DC, even if it occasionally needs a little reconstructive surgery.
