he's got one of those faces...

The first thing I think I want to address is the body horror. I don't have a huge tolerance for it in general but I didn't feel like this film ever pushed too desperately hard in any one direction. Gore has long since been a turn off when potentially watching a film and I've steered clear of plenty that advertise it as a selling point up front. Doesn't mean I haven't found myself stuck in an unsavory place within the confines of a movie and have had to endure blood and guts I never meant to observe. But it's a trope I do tend to put some cinematic distance between myself and it's general utilization as often as I can. That all being said, I really have to reiterate that I felt like what this feature presented was nothing that truly made me squirm outside of potentially one or two instances that did legitimately elevate the tension of the scene with a real expertise. So as for that being a significant deterrent, I can say from my level of comfortability, it did not prove to be an obstacle I couldn't overcome and will gladly watch this movie again without reservation.

The second thing, because it's something I'm always so big on, is the casting here. I think my biggest thing about it is how well this movie took shape through the acting without any really significant players. Tom Rhys Harries as Matt Hagen is legitimately unknown to me. There were only a couple familiar faces and they are deep cuts. Eddie Marsan is the most notable actor because he's British and has been around for a minute. There's a couple other players involved that I recognized but I think what was really reinforced was how a well scripted and well directed movie can utilize actors who aren't particularly known or memorable from other roles and transform a film into an intensely enjoyable experience. Harries does a lot of heavy lifting but he's hardly the only one at work. Other principle cast and supporting roles come together notably in ways that craft a solid ensemble performance in ways that really pay dividends. I think what it showed me as well is that DC has a whole universe of characters that can come to life in compelling stories in ways that aren't being explored. I really enjoyed Joker but I think side by side, I might actually enjoy this one a little more. I think Phoenix was a fantastic reimagining of that role but I think Harries owned this transformation from a grounded and likable individual to a very dynamic and complex villain with layers that are very interesting to explore. I sincerely hope this does open more doors for a further cavalcade of bad guys within the DC, and maybe more intentionally, the Batman universe.

I think I'd like to remark on the scenery for once as well. This might be a little bit of a finessed take on things but it's one of the movies within any DC exercise that feels tangible. Not that other versions of Gotham feel tremendously forced or lacking in a genuine quality. But Nolan's Gotham was always Chicago dressed up to me. That was always hard for me to get around. That's probably just my own perspective because I know the city fairly well but I think in many other instances, DC has always had that uphill climb of existing in an entirely contrived world. All of the cities are copies of real world locations but it was never a complication for Marvel. Those are set in actual, known cities. So you simply film there. But this movie takes place in Gotham. And while there's not some deliberate expression trying to convince you this is set in a truly fictional place, I feel like it's worth noting that it's one of the few times I felt like DC actually really nailed that backdrop for the film. I note it more because it's not deliberately made to look dark or that they've just put a mask on a known location. The other end of the spectrum is that some of the times they've simply overlooked the setting of a DC movie. I just really enjoyed that they felt like Gotham resonated the most acclimated I think it may have ever done so within that framed background structure.

I think the final element I want to examine are the visual effects in this movie. There is a considerable harmonious nature to how they exist within the story. There are obviously plenty of computer generated effects but I have to say that the practical ones shined just are brightly. In some of the scenes, the camera work combined with the effects worked so well that it was genuinely seamless and it only enhanced the experience. The panic as transformation was occurring was tangible. The ownership of how Hagen was changing from protagonist to antagonist by understanding and embracing this on one hand while wrestling with it on the other was only enhanced by the visual impact of how he played this out. The fracturing of his mental state via the CGI gave such a richer progression of the overall narrative that had a fluidity that matched the general construct of the character of Clayface. It was rigid and frightening at first. But then, as the struggle for control in a number of capacities became more ambiguous, Hagen's losing of himself through what we are shown on screen through the effects is incredibly powerful. Visually, again, it's wonderfully engrossing. We are sucked into this nefarious conversion through compromise of values as he's absorbed at a cellular level. I was incredibly impressed by the totality of all these elements coming together so well and to be shown it all with such significant expression visually was so well done .

I won't pretend this movie is perfect but I am struggling to really connect anything negative to say about it. All the things I anticipated having problems with were all pretty much dealt with in ways I appreciated considerably. There were still times I cringed in my seat, which I didn't enjoy, per se, but that was still the overall intention of the scene. So I can't fault the movie on a critical level for doing exactly what it intended and promised to do. Even trying to construct a critique of a negative persuasion I'm struggling to put anything together. It's an origin story that I hope sets up Clayface's presence in a broader world as DC continues to figure out how to circle back to a new Batman in the Gunn age of an expanding universe. I think everything they set out to do with this movie worked surprisingly well for me and at the end, I was a big fan of as the credits rolled. I don't even mind that there were plenty of things I found predictable. I know sometimes that can be a drawback when there aren't any surprises. But I know the story of Clayface, at least in the broad strokes. I liked that there seemed to be a modern interpretation mixed with an understanding of how known origin stories existed. I'm aware of the cartoon emergence of Clayface. That's the origin I'm concerned with. This wasn't exactly the same as that but we got to the same place we needed to and I loved it. So even the interpretive power of a new iteration of an existing character was once again a gamble, but I felt like it paid off.

I don't think it's any surprise but I'm giving this movie an A. I still reserve the A+ for movies I put above even the really enjoyable ones. There are favorites that are just remarkably made films that truly embody the crossroads of expert filmmaking and personal attachment. Zodiac is an A+. Snatch is an A+. Ghostbusters is an A+. Clayface sits quite comfortably below that echelon for me. I sincerely enjoyed it from beginning to end. I pre-ordered it as the credits started. Again, not that this denotes a quality movie on it's basis alone. I've pre-ordered movies I just really enjoyed that weren't otherwise such adept films. But I felt like this one absolutely warranted a purchase as I could easily see watching this one multiple times in the future. It's not a regular viewing but definitely earns a spot on the shelf. I will also gladly reiterate that I do hope Gunn does take note of this success as film hopefully shows off it's legs in week two in theaters. It's presently sitting at about $52M which means it needs roughly another $38 before it's definitively profitable. I'd be surprised if it doesn't pick up something close to that this coming weekend. It also really proves that you can make a solid DC movie for less than $50M and that's worth noting. It's not a gigantic production. But the formula is repeatable with the right people and the proper approach. Get qualified storytellers and capable actors to bring to life compelling characters through interesting narratives. Splash in the appropriate amount of effects and you've got a real recipe for success that I think they can redeploy with a skilled measure of regularity when applied correctly.

I'm quite glad I employed the level of intentionality I did today. Normally much of this process is that organic approach and I think it's proven itself to be quite worthwhile over time. But experiments like today's theatrical excursion, along with some of the other changes I've made this year by accepting recommendations and playing with the structure a little bit have spiced up the entire process which I've immensely appreciated. I'm looking at two days left in the whole process. I can watch something during the day tomorrow while my boys are at school so I don't have an MPAA restrictions on the selection for day 30. I think though, that with last night's viewing and today's film, I'm quite satisfied even at day 29 with how things have really shaped up this year. I know I'm a bit of a broken record in that respect and I don't mind it. 2026 has been a lot of fun and I've watched a number of legitimately good films this year. I just need to figure out how to keep doing this part even after the 31 days are up. I won't keep watching a movie every day to write about it. And I'm certainly going to be ok on horror flicks for a minute. But there's been plenty of merit and enjoyment out of this adventure that I intend to keep up. So we'll be back at least two more times this week to finish out October strongly. As always, however, we'll simply have to wait until tomorrow to see what selection emerges for our second to last film. Until then, I'll catch you on the flip side.