Clayface review: not great, but Tom Rhys Harries makes it surprisingly good

This is my spoiler free review of Clayface, and here's the short version: it isn't a great movie, but it's surprisingly good. It has strong moments, and as a Batman fan I was pretty darn happy with it. I also knew almost immediately that it had been advertised poorly. As soon as the title came up on screen, I thought: you sold it all wrong.

Clayface starts like a student film but earns its fresh tomato

As the movie started, it felt like a well made student film, and I wondered how I could justify giving it a fresh tomato the way so many of my peers have. It's nice to see support for a DC movie, and for a standalone villain movie, after so many of Sony's were crucified. I was able to appreciate Venom, particularly the first one, Morbius and Kraven for what they were.

Is Clayface like those movies? I'd say it's better quality. I think Morbius and Kraven seemed like the studio didn't understand the characters to a degree, so Clayface is better in that regard. Venom was a bigger movie with Tom Hardy at the height of his stardom, which is a different situation. Even so, early on I felt this movie wasn't professional enough. Then, as it unfolded, I started to see why everyone was giving it a fresh rating.

Tom Rhys Harries is a discovery, and his Clayface is a real villain

I think everyone has given this a fresh rating because of Tom Rhys Harries. He's an incredible discovery. Other actors have done good work in these movies, but it can feel like paycheck gigs, or you already know them. There's something magical about discovering an actor. I know he's been in a couple of other things, but I don't remember seeing him before, and here you find yourself asking, who's this guy?

He's extremely likable even while playing a villain, and that's another thing the movie has going for it. This isn't an antihero Clayface. That was a real problem with the Sony standalone villain movies, where everybody tried to seem like maybe they were just misunderstood. Not here. Like the Penguin miniseries on HBO, Clayface is a villain, and I liked that a lot.

I didn't miss Batman, but I did miss Gotham City

Strangely, I didn't miss Batman. I was sure I would. It reminded me of how Batman: The Animated Series would introduce a villain of the episode, with Bruce Wayne involved somehow through business dealings or social circles, and then Batman would arrive at the end. It would have been nice if he'd been there, but he didn't need to be. Batman's rogues gallery has a long history in the comics of supporting stories without him, and even in animation he sometimes barely shows up until the end. Spider-Man's rogues, by contrast, are usually only around when Spider-Man is.

What I did miss was Gotham City Easter eggs. Batman has a rich mythology, so not seeing a reference to any supporting characters, locations or history was bizarre. Give me a street name. Give me Robinson Park. There are plenty of GCPD detectives I'd recognize, so give me one of them. That was frustrating. But in the third act, two things happened that made me think, "Okay, I can definitely give this a fresh tomato."

The second nightclub scene is the movie's standout

The first of those is the second nightclub scene. There's a nightclub sequence toward the beginning that sets everything in motion, and it's a nice touch to bookend the story with two pivotal nightclub sequences. I'd seen someone mention the second one in a social media reaction, but I still wasn't prepared for how good it is. When it started, I thought it was supposed to be a standout scene and I'd see. It is. I bet clips of it will pop up all over social media.

The way Clayface uses his powers here is fantastic. I've never seen Clayface act quite this way. He's extremely Mystique coded, which I think is brilliant. He's still a villain getting used to his powers, but I'm glad they gave him a sequence like this instead of saving it for the next movie, which Hollywood so often does. You get to see him be Clayface right here and now.

Clayface could potentially raise its title villain higher in Batman's rogues gallery

The second thing I enjoyed in the third act was seeing the Clayface many of us know emerge believably in live action. You recognize him and think, that is Clayface, not, what have you done to Clayface? I think this potentially raises him up within Batman's rogues gallery. He's often been reduced to muscle, the way Bane and Hulk sometimes are, even though there are great stories for those characters. Recently he's usually a henchman or an assassin. This puts him right up front and makes him someone I think is exciting as a villain.

There are great Clayface stories, particularly in animation. His introduction in Batman: The Animated Series, the show that created most Batman fans today, including me, inspired Mike Flanagan to write the original screenplay for this. I think this movie is good only because of Flanagan's script and Rhys Harries' performance. Imagine if they hadn't messed with Flanagan's script. I'm also reading Clayface: Celebrity Dirt, which is surprisingly good and doesn't have Batman in it either, and I'd now put this movie right up front among Clayface stories.

Clayface is about a beautiful star losing his value

In the past, Clayface is usually Basil Karlo, an older actor who becomes Clayface trying to hold on to a career that's fading because of his age. That's very much like The Substance, which may be why they went with a younger actor. Instead of de-aging Karlo, they used Matt Hagen, who was a treasure hunter, not an actor, when he was first introduced in the comics. Making him a younger Hollywood star creates interesting commentary about physical beauty, inside and out.

It also brought to mind Ryan Murphy's The Beauty. I know hardly anybody watched it, but I did. I thought it was okay and liked many of the cast, particularly Evan Peters, who in a different era would be Clayface. Both The Beauty and The Substance have more body horror than Clayface. The theme here is that a hot young movie star can do whatever he wants, almost as a power in itself, but when he's no longer beautiful he instantly loses his value. A better movie would have explored that more, but it fascinated me.

Karlo was never a super attractive movie star. He wanted to be more viable as an actor. This change adds to the dynamic, because Hagen gets his self-worth from how he feels about his appearance, and that's interesting commentary too.

Rhys Harries keeps the pretty boy relatable and a little evil

You might wonder how a pretty boy can be sympathetic. That's where Rhys Harries comes in. He fits the bill as a handsome Hollywood hunk with his movie star smile and tousled blond hair. In one shot he has his mask on after his disfigurement and his hair is still in movie star mode, and I found that hilarious. But he has a quirkiness that makes his attractiveness off kilter, and I think more relatable and likable. Even at his peak he doesn't come across as plastic, which may be the problem with The Beauty, where they intentionally cast very plastic actors.

He still seems like a real person, and a little evil. A Rami Malek SNL sketch popped up in my timeline, and I think he described himself as having the soul of a Victorian child trapped in his eyes. Rhys Harries has that vibe. A couple of years ago Malek might have played this role, though Rhys Harries has the smile and the blond hair. With him, it's clear there's something dark, sinister and disturbed in there, and it's very believable.

A male Mystique, made for 40 million dollars

Doing a male version of Mystique is smart, and like Mystique, he's also hot. I'd never give Mystique a Disney Plus show, but would I give her an R rated Hulu show? I'd consider it. It would be expensive, but they spent 400 million on Spider-Noir, and this was made for just 40 million.

Another reason it brought Mystique to mind is that it's filmed much the same way, with camera tricks to avoid spending as much on shapeshifting. Cut here, go around a corner. Mystique would walk behind a glass pane and come out the other side changed, and you'd only hear the sound effect. It didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. I saw some people complain, and I guess maybe they're not comic book fans. I was satisfied.

I also liked the serious look at how being an actor helps Hagen impersonate people. Mystique can look and sound like her targets, but can she sell that she truly is that person for a meaningful amount of time? Hagen has experience, and without a script he's very good at improv. That was fun to watch.

Outside its lead, the cast feels like a student film

When I said this felt like a student film, I meant a student film by someone who shows a lot of promise, even though it's made by people who have made quite a number of movies. One thing that makes it feel that way is that the cast outside of Rhys Harries is ridiculously pedestrian. It's like a student film where you luck out with your lead, catching someone from the acting program on his way to stardom. The actors are fine, not bad, but not quite professional either, and I don't see them going anywhere. The exception is the actress who plays a gangster's girlfriend, who I believe is Portuguese. I thought she was good and could potentially be something.

Naomi Ackie is here, and she does a very nice job. She's a likable actress, but I didn't feel any chemistry between her and Rhys Harries. Her role as a scientist helping Matt is very important to the story. In Clayface: Celebrity Dirt, Clayface also interacts with a scientist, but a trans scientist, which is interesting commentary on shapeshifting and how we see ourselves and others, much like the discussion of Hunter Schafer as a good candidate for Mystique. I think that might have been a better use of the scientist. I'm not sure they needed a romantic flirtation. It created one very cool scene, but maybe they were trying to get more women to see the movie, and they didn't sell it that way.

Clayface's effects look great, but Gotham's looked like AI to me

Forty million for a movie where the lead is a shapeshifter is impressive, and I think they pull it off. Some might disagree, but the effects specific to Clayface looked great. They kept finding interesting ways to make his face drip off. I also felt I understood the science behind his powers, unlike comics that often explain powers with, essentially, because I said so. If Batman ever meets this version, I think he'll have a field day taking a sample back to the Bat Lab.

I guess they spent all the money on Clayface, because the Gotham City effects were a joke. I don't know if they used AI to make them, but it sure looked like it. There was an oversaturated, slick sheen like AI landscapes, plus duplication: it's the Brooklyn Bridge, but four of them. Scenes of Times Square looked bad, and the GCPD sign slapped on a building made me wonder who did these effects. I'm surprised nobody said it looked like AI.

Clayface has body horror elements but isn't a body horror film

Some people have been calling Clayface a body horror film. It has those elements, and I had to look away three or four times, but I'm a wimp when it comes to horror. Overall I wouldn't call it body horror. Someone messaged me after seeing it to say they were disappointed it wasn't very scary or gross, and I understood that complaint. This is for comic book fans.

I think this Clayface fits with Reeves' Riddler and Penguin

I think the movie does a wonderful job bringing Clayface to live action, which I never would have thought possible, grounding him while letting him keep his fantastic powers, and lifting him out of the role of muscle. I think he fits with Todd Phillips' Joker in the first movie and Matt Reeves' Riddler and Penguin. I do think it's very weird that this Clayface isn't in the Reeves verse. Having two Batman universes is frustrating, and I see no rhyme or reason to the division, much like what got rebooted and what didn't when James Gunn took over.

Maybe they feel Clayface can't be in the Reeves verse because he has powers. I don't know if Reeves necessarily wants to continue after his second film, but he got away with it in the first by choosing the Riddler. Eventually he'll have to get into superpowers, and I don't know how he'll get around it. The powers here are explained in a way that felt like they could be real. With all the technological advancement in our world, I feel like this stuff could happen.

Comic book fans should see Clayface in theaters

If you're a comic book fan, you should definitely buy tickets. There's very good material here from a comic book perspective, and there's Matt Hagen's wink. The first time he winks, I knew I was having a very good time. It's subtle and I don't want to oversell it, but for me it was everything. Supporting this more serious approach to comic book stories, one that keeps the power sets, could also help bring back Batman villains who've been benched for a long time, like Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy.

If you're not into comics, it isn't that scary, but you could see it for Halloween, and I'm thinking of seeing it again then. Before it, there was a trailer for Wildwood that played up the scary aspects, and one for Mike Flanagan's Exorcist movie with Scarlett Johansson, which I wish were coming out for Halloween instead of March. For non comic book fans, I think Clayface would be worth watching at home on digital down the line.

It's surprisingly good. It isn't great, and I don't want to oversell it, but it's pretty darn good, with some real standout scenes and an incredible performance by Tom Rhys Harries. I truly hope we see him again as Clayface. It would be a real shame if we didn't.