PETALING JAYA: Is James Gunn’s DC Universe already losing momentum? Following the success of “Superman” last year, fans were eager to see what the new DCU had in store, particularly with a slate of projects promising characters and stories rarely explored on the big screen.
Then came Craig Gillespie’s “Supergirl”, starring Milly Alcock, which failed to make a strong impression at the box office earlier this year and divided cinemagoers. Now, James Watkins’s “Clayface”, billed as the DCU’s first proper foray into horror, risks following a similarly uncertain path.
The 109-minute film, starring Welsh actor Tom Rhys Harries in the title role, feels less like a major DC release and more like a B-grade companion piece. That is not necessarily a problem - in fact, a smaller, stranger genre film could have been exactly what the character needed.
But for a body-horror story centred on one of DC Comics’ best-known villains - and based on a script originally written by acclaimed horror filmmaker Mike Flanagan - “Clayface” feels surprisingly cautious. It rarely pushes the grotesque possibilities of its premise far enough, and it also remains oddly detached from the wider world of DC superheroes.
The story follows Matt Hagen (Harries), an aspiring actor whose promising career is shattered after a brutal attack leaves his face disfigured. Desperate to reclaim both his appearance and livelihood, he turns to an experimental procedure developed by Dr Caitlin Bates (Naomi Ackie), which promises to restore what he has lost.
Instead, the treatment transforms him into a shape-shifting creature capable of moulding his body into different forms.
At its core, “Clayface” follows a familiar villain-origin arc, asking how far someone might fall when stripped of identity, purpose and hope.
Harries sells that descent convincingly. There is a degree of catharsis when Hagen finally exacts revenge, and the filmmakers clearly want his transformation to feel psychologically rooted rather than merely monstrous.
The problem is that the film keeps reaching for complexity without ever fully committing to it. Bates, in particular, feels underwritten, despite being central to Hagen’s transformation. Her motivations and personal stakes are never explored deeply enough, leaving what should be a fraught relationship feeling thinner than it ought to.
The script also gestures towards weightier ideas about scientific ethics, ambition, vanity and the lengths people will go to recover what they have lost. Yet these themes are introduced more often than they are developed, which makes several of the characters’ choices feel less compelling than intended.
The pacing does not help: “Clayface” frequently meanders, with too little danger or urgency to sustain tension.
There are moments of gore, certainly, but the body horror rarely reaches the disturbing heights the concept invites. For a story built around grotesque transformation and the loss of bodily control, the film should feel far more unsettling than it does.
One of the brighter spots is its portrayal of Gotham. Batman is never mentioned, but the city itself is recognisable: grimy, dangerous and crawling with criminals.
Its brooding atmosphere gives “Clayface” a sense of place that much of the rest of the film lacks. This, however, only makes it more frustrating that the story never quite establishes how Hagen fits into this world, or whether he is meant to matter beyond this standalone outing.
For now, the film feels suspended between two identities: a grim body-horror experiment and a comic-book origin story. It never fully commits to either - and that indecision ultimately becomes its defining flaw.
"Clayface" wants to disturb, move and intrigue, but instead leaves its horror ambitions, and its place in the DC universe, frustratingly unresolved.
As of press time, ‘Clayface’ is screening in cinemas nationwide.