5 November 2026 – I went on my own to the Odeon cinema to see ‘Clayface’ today. The synopsis on the cinema website was as follows:
“DC Studios’ first-ever foray into the horror thriller genre. Matt Hagen’s meteoric rise from Gotham street kid to Hollywood leading man is tragically cut short when a local crime boss’s actions leave him horribly disfigured. Abandoned by his team and with nothing left, Matt seeks out a cutting edge treatment that miraculously returns him to his former self… but also unexpectedly affects his grip on reality, spiraling him down a destructive path of all-consuming revenge.”
This turned out to be a true ‘Body Horror’ movie that combined itself with the traditional ‘Revenge Thriller’ genre as it progressed in time. The violence was extreme, the body horror was indeed truly horrific. And that, combined with the far too graphic surgical procedures made it live-up to what was billed, and reminds me forcefully to read more carefully the synopsis of the films that I am intending to go and see.
The leading members of the cast were: Tom Rhys Harries, Naomi Ackie, Max Minghella and Joana Ribeiro ; and the film was directed by James Watkins, known for ‘Eden Lake’, ‘The Woman in Black’, ‘The Take’, ‘Black Mirror’, ‘McMafia’, ‘The Ipcress File’ and ‘Speak No Evil’. The writers were: Mike Flannagan and Hossein Amini.
The plot and setting arise out of the Marvel Comics universe. This film was initially very much a body horror movie eventually morphing into a revenge thriller, whilst retaining the body horror aspects. I found the violence, body horror and medical procedures to be disgustingly graphic, but probably impressive for a horror fan, whilst the acting out of the ultimate storyline was not great, in my opinion. I was mostly repulsed by this film, and whilst I might suggest it as a good example of a body horror movie to those I know as horror fans, I would not otherwise recommend it to anyone else, particularly because of the truly repulsive nature of it. I should have paid a lot more attention to what I was planning to see. And if I had, I would not be writing this now.
Mark Kermode liked this movie as it comes from the ‘Body Horror’ genre, but is not sure how well that will go down with those looking for more of a Marvel Universe film.
He described the film as a big mix of CGI and special effects, with some serious “wince-inducing moments”, but liked the fact that there was a “very nice squishy, rubbery feel to it”.
For him, both characters are terrific, and this made for a great character drama. He acknowledges that Naomi Ackie is already a star, whilst also thinking that Tom Rhys Harries has a great career ahead of him.
He thought the identity-swapping sequence in the nightclub worked really well, but although entertaining, it made no sense to him whatsoever.
I gave it a score of 5, whilst IMDB gave it 7.5, and the Rotten Tomatoes score was 7.8 (78%).
Fraser
AI Contribution: Claude provided a summary of UK reviews, which was then edited and checked for accuracy by Microsoft Copilot (see below). No human verification took place.
Please provide a full summary of UK film reviews of the 2026 film ‘Clayface’, showing sources.
Clayface: UK critical reception
The UK-outlet reviews checked here suggest a mixed but broadly favourable reception for Clayface. Tom Rhys Harries’s performance and the visceral body horror attracted substantial praise, while reservations centred on limited character development, familiar revenge plotting and uneven visual identity. These are recurring themes, rather than a unanimous verdict. See Empire, The Independent, via Yahoo and Digital Spy.
The strongest endorsements came from The Telegraph and Time Out. Robbie Collin’s four-star Telegraph review, reproduced by Filmaffinity, welcomed the film’s apparent creative freedom. Helen O’Hara’s Time Out review likewise praised its grisly transformations, noir atmosphere and handling of Hagen’s possible redemption. Although she recognised the conventional revenge structure and similarities to Darkman, she regarded the result as an unusually successful DC film.
More qualified responses separated the film’s physical impact from its dramatic depth. Empire’s Sophie Butcher praised Harries and the effects, particularly the plane and nightclub sequences, but found the treatment of appearance and identity superficial. Clarisse Loughrey’s three-star Independent review, via Yahoo also singled out Harries and the practical effects, while arguing that the film worked better as standalone horror than as a convincing vision of the DC world. Digital Spy’s Ian Sandwell admired its commitment to horror and a genuinely villainous lead, but criticised generic supporting characters and the slide into a standard revenge tale. Radio Times’ review index confirms Rosie Fletcher’s three-star assessment, describing the origin story as pacy and gross, but unremarkable.
The Guardian was markedly less impressed. Benjamin Lee’s review, syndicated by AOL, acknowledged the film’s ability to disgust, but criticised its television-like appearance and Liverpool’s effectiveness as Gotham. Its rating is listed as two stars by Filmaffinity. Gotham was therefore a point of disagreement, not consensus: Loughrey found it visually unpersuasive, whereas O’Hara found its grey-and-neon atmosphere compelling.
As supplementary international context, James Mottram’s South China Morning Post review is listed at 3.5/5 by Filmaffinity, which reproduces a favourable assessment of its grisly crime-and-horror blend. It is kept separate from the UK-outlet roundup. Overall, the checked reviews present Clayface as a distinctive, often effective horror diversion whose storytelling does not satisfy all its critics.
Source verification — checked 7 November 2026
- Kermode / Radio Times correction: Rotten Tomatoes attributes the criticism about tonal imbalance and an origin story that goes nowhere to Radio Times, not Mark Kermode. Its Kermode & Mayo entry instead records a positive response. The original Kermode 3/5 rating was not substantiated and has been removed. Rotten Tomatoes listing.
- Aggregate scores: The original Rotten Tomatoes figure of 75% from 83 reviews is supported as an early snapshot in an October 21 roundup, not as a current total. The retrieved Metacritic listing shows 58/100 from 46 reviews, rather than 59/100. No definitive current Rotten Tomatoes percentage or review count could be verified from the main listing, so none is presented as current.
- Guardian correction: The description of a grating lead performance in the accessible review refers to Joker, not Harries in Clayface; Lee describes Harries as adequate. The misattribution has been removed. The two-star rating is confirmed through Filmaffinity, rather than the syndicated copy. AOL review; Filmaffinity.
- Ratings and scope: Telegraph 4/5, Guardian 2/5 and SCMP 3.5/5 are supported by aggregator listings; Independent 3/5 is shown in the syndicated review and Radio Times 3/5 in its own index. Time Out’s four-star rating was not independently reconfirmed from the retrieved text, so the summary describes its verdict without a score. SCMP remains supplementary, not a UK publication.
- Unresolved material: The Times’ rating and quoted cast comparisons could not be verified, and the cited Dark Horizons page could not be retrieved through search. The full TechRadar and GamesRadar+ reviews were also unavailable for checking, so their detailed claims have been omitted. Digital Spy’s review was retrievable and is now included. The earlier failure to find Evening Standard, Little White Lies or Sight and Sound reviews should not be treated as proof that none exists.
Verification is based on retrievable indexed review text and publisher or aggregator listings. Ratings sourced indirectly are identified above; inaccessible originals remain unverified. Duplicated links and the redundant source list have been replaced with source links beside the relevant claims.