New Release: Clayface
Why does Hollywood keep dropping the ball with comic book villain-centric movies?
After seeing the trailer earlier this year, I had high hopes for Clayface. It looked vastly different than Superman and Supergirl. It felt gritty like The Penguin series. A lot of the buzz was that this movie would be extremely body-horrific. That gave audiences hope that DC would sprinkle indifferent vibes while building its cinematic universe. If you know the character, skip to the review. If you don't, let me introduce you. Clayface is a DC Comics character, an adversary of Batman. He's been several different characters in the comics, but most share the same clay-like body and shape-shifting abilities. He's been an actor, a treasure hunter, and a man suffering from a hormonal disease. This film combines Matt Hagen, a treasure hunter, with actor Basil Karlo. Not sure if that little bit of information helps, but I'm just trying to get this word count over 400 lol. I kid...kinda.
Now that we've covered the background, let's dive into this movie. I'm not sure if this is a James Gunn issue, a comic book problem, or a Hollywood issue, but there has been a real problem in adapting characters, primarily comic book villains, for the big screen. Joker might be the exception, but the track record hasn't been good. Is this because a villain isn't interesting without his main antagonist? Or Hollywood just hasn't figured out how to make an interesting comic book villain movie? I'm not quite sure of the answer, but unfortunately, Clayface suffers from whatever ails this genre.
What works: The CGI was incredible. Often, comic book movies have shoddy visual effects, mainly because studios work their visual artists and animators inhumanely. Still, when they get it right, it can be immersive for the audience. It truly draws you into that world because you're not turned off by how bad it all looks. So kudos to these guys for this movie; the body-horror scenes and Clayface's blob reveal look amazing. Another huge plus is the chemistry between Tom Rhys Harries, who plays Matt Hagen, and Naomi Ackie, who plays Caitlyn Corr (Matt Hagen's doctor). Their scenes together are emotional and heartfelt. Nothing feels forced about this bittersweet connection between these characters. So when the movie focuses on the body horror and the relationship, it shows you those moments of what could've been. I've discussed my issues before with movies that don't go full throttle. I think it's a waste of the audience's time and money to half-ass a concept.
Which leads me to...
What doesn't work: I wish the effort that went into the visual effects had gone into the script. Some scenes have dialogue so bad that any full immersion in the film comes to a screeching halt. It's not Madame Web-level bad, but it's not good either. The last thing I want during a movie is to groan after a line is delivered. It's NEVER a good sign. The script seems lazy not just in the dialogue, but in the overall plot and premise. I don't mind a semi-predictable movie, but when it's SO predictable, it's easy to check out. And movies are too expensive for your average audience member to have them feel outside the movie. If the movie had leaned into the body horror more, or even made it more suspenseful or horrific overall, I'd be having a different conversation with you now, but this ended up being another ho-hum comic book villain movie. It's just...ok, but in this instance, "ok" means boring, which can make a movie forgettable. Also, a tiny personal nitpick of mine...when making a comic-book villain movie, the audience (or just me) is expecting a tie to that comic-book universe. I didn't expect to see Batman, or hear the name Batman or Bruce Wayne mentioned, but when all you get is seeing "Gotham" on a hospital or police building, it's also not enough for me. It left me feeling like they should've created an original character instead of pulling from a universe you never intended to show. Maybe that's just me, but if you feel the same, you're not alone. 3/5
Comments