Clayface

"Clayface", directed by James Watkins, is the third film in James Gunn’s new DCU, and I have to say that I enjoyed it considerably more than some of my criticism might suggest. Because even though there are quite a few things that bothered me, I still had a genuinely good time with the film. At the same time, I cannot help but feel that there were so many opportunities to explore its characters, its setting, and especially its central themes in much greater depth.

My first problem with the film is how quickly it introduces us to Matt Hagen and then almost immediately takes away the person we have barely had the chance to get to know. Within what feels like the first fifteen minutes, Matt has already experienced the trauma that ultimately turns him into Clayface, or at least the trauma that makes him believe he is worth nothing without his face. After all, he is an actor, and his entire identity seems to revolve around his appearance. But this is exactly where I think the film could have explored something much more interesting. Does losing his face really mean losing his ability to act? I do not think so. Perhaps he would have needed to find a different place in the industry, but we are talking about an apparently talented actor who has just received his first Oscar nomination. Surely his talent does not simply disappear because his face has been destroyed.

Later in the film, when he transforms into other people as Clayface, he is still capable of stepping into their roles and convincingly portraying them. So why could he not have found a way to reinvent himself as an actor even with a disfigured face? Perhaps the real problem is that Matt himself does not know who he actually is without his appearance. And that would have been an incredibly interesting character study. Unfortunately, we as an audience never really get to know Matt Hagen either. We only get to know Clayface.

Before watching the film, I had heard quite a bit about how brutal it supposedly was, especially considering that it received an R rating in the United States. And honestly, I do not quite see it. Here in Germany, the film received an FSK 16 rating, which I think is perfectly appropriate. Almost everything particularly disturbing seems to happen within the first thirty minutes. We get the operations, the mutilation, and, oh, even some nudity. But does that really make the entire film exceptionally brutal? I do not think so.

What makes this even more interesting is that "Clayface" never seems entirely sure what kind of film it wants to be. Does it want to be a body horror film like "The Substance", which it quite obviously takes inspiration from? Does it want to be a proper villain origin story, a love story, a horror film, or simply a revenge thriller? There is a little bit of everything, but never quite enough of any one thing. For a few individual sequences, it comes closest to "The Substance", and those are actually among the moments I enjoyed the most. But rather than fully committing to one direction, the film constantly moves between genres without ever becoming particularly outstanding in any of them.

And then there is Gotham.

"Clayface" clearly follows the visual direction established by the new DCU, and it certainly looks like it belongs to that universe. But knowing that DC was producing "The Batman" only a few years ago, a film that takes place in the very same city where Clayface has his roots, makes me miss that other version of Gotham even more. I know perfectly well that Matt Reeves' "The Batman" exists outside James Gunn’s DCU, but I still consider it a mistake that this version of Batman and Gotham was not integrated into the new universe. For me, "The Batman" simply represents a much more compelling vision of what a DC universe could look and feel like. Its atmosphere, its visual identity, and especially the way Gotham itself feels like an essential part of the story are on an entirely different level.

But I also want to make something very clear here. I do not think "Clayface" looks bad. Quite the opposite, actually. There are some genuinely beautiful shots throughout the film, particularly the sequences illuminated by neon lights. The cinematography can be really striking, and I enjoyed quite a few of those visual moments. My problem is not that Gotham looks ugly or that the film lacks interesting imagery. My problem is that it does not feel like the dark, oppressive Gotham I fell in love with in "The Batman".

Yes, the city is dirty, but somehow it still feels bright. A lot of that comes down to the lighting, which gives the environments a much cleaner and more open appearance than I would have expected. And simply putting Matt Hagen in what might genuinely be one of the most disgusting apartments I have ever seen on screen does not suddenly make the entire city feel dark. There is mold everywhere, cockroaches crawling around, and the whole place looks as if it might collapse at any moment, or at least as if sewage is about to start dripping through the ceiling. But outside that apartment, the atmosphere often feels completely different. The club looks too bright and polished, the law office too elegant, and, honestly, even the weather seems a little too nice for Gotham.

There are also several sequences where Matt temporarily manages to restore his face, allowing him to attend a film premiere, go on vacation, or visit a film set in Gotham. And while I actually enjoyed some of these moments visually, they also contribute to a much brighter and occasionally more glamorous portrayal of the city. None of this is necessarily bad on its own, and I can absolutely appreciate the beauty of those images. They simply do not capture the Gotham that I personally find so fascinating. For me, darkness is not something you create just by filling an apartment with mold or introducing a criminal organization. It is something that should be reflected in the atmosphere of the entire city, in its streets, its buildings, its lighting, and the feeling that something terrible might be waiting around every corner. That is exactly what "The Batman" managed to establish so effectively, and it is something I really missed here.

While watching "Clayface", I also kept wondering how much more interesting this story could have been if it had taken place in the same universe as "The Batman". Imagine Batman investigating a series of violent attacks without initially knowing who or what is responsible, slowly discovering that the person behind them is someone capable of becoming almost anyone. Would that not have been an ideal opportunity for another grounded detective story? A film in which Batman has to uncover the identity behind Clayface’s revenge campaign could have been incredibly compelling, especially within the atmosphere Matt Reeves established.

Of course, I understand that "Clayface" is supposed to tell its own story and does not need Batman to function. But the comparison kept coming back to me because I think the film could have benefited enormously from a more grounded approach and, above all, from a deeper exploration of Matt Hagen himself.

Instead, we mostly follow Clayface on a revenge campaign that makes sense on a very superficial level, but never becomes as emotionally engaging as it could have been. If we had spent more time getting to know Matt before everything happened to him, understanding his ambitions, his insecurities, and what acting actually meant to him, I think his transformation and everything that follows would have carried considerably more weight. As it stands, parts of the film almost feel like a "John Wick" imitation, except that our protagonist now has superpowers. And even those powers eventually raise questions for me. At a certain point, Matt can apparently transform not only his body but also his clothing when impersonating someone else. How exactly does that work with the nanorobotic cells responsible for his transformation? I can accept a certain amount of comic book logic, especially in a film about a man who can change his entire appearance, but the rules of his abilities begin to feel increasingly convenient rather than clearly established.

Of course, one of the most important questions for a film like "Clayface" is whether the visual effects actually work. After all, they are what bring the character to life in the first place. And my answer would be both yes and no.

There are moments when the effects look genuinely fantastic. The facial transformations, the masks, and especially some of the transitions between different identities are incredibly convincing. At times, I was genuinely impressed by how naturally those transformations were integrated into the scene. But then, sometimes in the very next shot, the effects look as if the production had suddenly run out of money or simply decided that what they had was good enough. This becomes especially noticeable whenever Clayface transforms his arms or develops these almost dinosaurlike spikes on his hands and body. To me, those moments often look surprisingly cheap.

The finale is probably the clearest example of this inconsistency. There is a moment when Clayface begins to dissolve and smear himself into the sewer system that I thought looked really good. But shortly before that, when he turns into this enormous mass of monstrous flesh, the CGI looks like some of the worst I have seen this year. And that contrast is something I noticed repeatedly throughout the film. One moment, the transformations are convincing and visually impressive, and the next, an attack or a kill looks as if it belongs to an entirely different production. Especially in a film where the main character's physical transformation is such an essential part of the experience, I find that inconsistency difficult to overlook.

And yet, despite everything I have criticized so far, I cannot get around the fact that the film never really lost me. I actually had considerably more fun with "Clayface" than this review probably makes it sound like.

I enjoyed the relationship between Matt Hagen and Caitlin Corr, and I think their dynamic gave the film some of its most engaging moments. I enjoyed the body horror whenever the effects managed to sell it, and I appreciated that this was not simply another generic superhero film following the same familiar formula. The fact that it mixes so many different genres is something I can criticize, but it is also part of what made the film entertaining to me. There is a certain unpredictability in the way it moves between horror, romance, revenge, and comic book spectacle, even if I wish it had explored at least one of those directions more thoroughly.

I also have to mention the music, because some of the choices genuinely worked for me and made individual scenes much more enjoyable. There are moments when the combination of music, lighting, and the characters' interactions creates exactly the kind of atmosphere I wanted from the film. And while I have criticized Gotham's overall appearance, I would be lying if I said that some of those neonlit sequences were not beautiful to look at. The problem is simply that the film operates on so many different levels without ever really excelling at one of them. It borrows from all kinds of genres and cinematic influences, and sometimes that works wonderfully, but other times it feels as if it is constantly searching for its own identity.

The sequence in the club shortly before the finale is another good example. On its own, it is entertaining, but it also feels like something that could have come straight out of "John Wick", just with a different kind of protagonist. And then we arrive at the actual finale, which I found surprisingly underwhelming. After everything the film has been building toward, the resolution feels almost too simple and not particularly remarkable. It also does not help that, by that point, the film had already started to feel too long to me. Instead of delivering a truly memorable conclusion, it seems to stretch itself out only to end on something that does not quite justify the time it took to get there.

Ultimately, "Clayface" is a film I genuinely enjoyed despite its many missed opportunities. It has beautiful imagery, entertaining moments, and some genuinely impressive body horror, but it never fully commits to any of its ideas. Perhaps that is what frustrates me most, because somewhere underneath all these different influences, I think there was a much stronger film waiting to be made.