"Clayface" - He's me-e-e-e-elti-i-i-i-ing.

I really want the new DC Universe movies to succeed. Not because I'm a DC fan, but because I just want good movies in general. Also, Zack Snyder's vision of the DC characters and universe was utter garbage and the brand deserves much better than sepia-toned slow-mo. Unfortunately, the new franchise is off to a very uneven start. Superman was really good and very well-received. I liked Supergirl, which flopped at the box office and split critics practically right down the middle (53% on Rotten Tomatoes). Now we have Clayface, a body-horror film featuring a minor villain in the Batman portion of DC. That certainly is a choice.

As I digested what I had just watched in Clayface, my mind wandered to why the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been so successful and DC has struggled. I think there are two main reasons for that success (and many minor reasons, but that's a discussion for another time). One is terrific casting and the other is never making a villain the main character of a film. Marvel hit the jackpot right out of the gate when they cast Robert Downey Jr. as Ironman, then, they did it again with Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and many, many more. So far, with the new DC, David Corenswet (Superman) and Milly Alcock (Supergirl) were solid choices, but I'm really not sold on Tom Rhys Harries as Clayface.

Which brings me to that second reason - don't make a villain the main character of a film. The villain can be an equal to the hero (like The Dark Knight), but not the main event. If we've learned anything from Sony's disaster that was their Sony Spider-Man Universe, it's that (1) it should have Spider-Man in it and (2) audiences don't have much appetite for villain-focused movies. Especially those that try to turn villains into anti-heroes. Clayface makes both those same mistakes.

I know this new cinematic universe is young, but how did anyone think it would be wise to make a movie about a Batman villain without including Batman? And why Clayface? I get why they didn't do a Joker movie. After director Todd Phillips gave everyone a giant middle finger with his Joker sequel two years ago, the audience's anger is still palpable. But that still leaves well-known villains like Riddler, Catwoman, and Penguin, among several others. Clayface is just weird. And gross. My memories of the character are from watching Batman: The Animated Series and Clayface always reminded me of when Bill Paxton's character in Weird Science is turned into a giant turd. And not a fun whimsical turd like Mr. Hanky in South Park, but a nonmobile, squirty, juicy, Jabba the Hutt sized, talking pile of poop. That's not exactly the kind of visual that makes me go "Clayface movie? I'm in!"

The main reason why Harries is cast as Clayface is because he has a beautiful face. This is important for the narrative that writers Mike Flanagan and Hossein Amini went with - dashing young actor and rising star Matt Hagen gets his face sliced up by mob boss Markos Szabo (David Dencik) after Hagen had sex with Szabo's girlfriend Mia (Joana Ribeiro). After Hagen experiences multiple failures trying to fix his face, he turns to Dr. Caitlyn Core (Naomi Ackie) who has invented nano-cells (nanobots) that can repair the damage. The only problem is the nano-thingies respond to Hagen's emotions, so every time he gets upset, his face starts to melt.

As you can probably guess, Hagen eventually learns how to control his cells and make his face (and body) look like anyone he wants. You can also probably guess that he wants revenge on the people that wrecked his life. And that's where the movie goes downhill pretty fast. Hagen starts out as a sympathetic character, but stops being sympathetic when he starts murdering people. It doesn't matter that the people wronged him; murder is always a turnoff for audiences. It gets worse when he professes his love for Dr. Core, whom Hagen is well aware has a fiance (Max Minghella) who is also a Gotham City police detective. And, if you remember from five paragraphs ago, this is a body-horror movie. That's a trifecta of yuck.

This same scenario is present in The Dark Knight in the form of Harvey "Two-Face" Dent, but it works because it's a side story that is really well-developed and also Batman is there. Clayface doesn't have a Batman to try to talk him off the murder ledge, just Dr. Core showing a very mild level of concern. In the absence of a better plot, the movie tries to cover for it with blood, cringy facial distortions (example: his eyelids sticking together the way Neo's mouth does in the interrogation scene in The Matrix), visually disturbing deaths, and female nudity. That last one isn't gross, but it's immediately followed by something that is. It's not gross, but it is mean.

This poor excuse for a screenplay doesn't do any of the actors any favors, but the acting just isn't very good, regardless. Harries is okay and you can see the possibilities of casting Harries during the climax scene in the nightclub. But most of the time he's very aggressively meh. Ackie fumbles around during her scenes, sometimes coming off as confident, other times come off timid and mousey. Minghella gives a performance equally as dry and bland as Dencik's performance is over-acted and hammy. The only memorable performance is that of the CGI team and that's not really a good thing in this case.

Hopefully, Clayface doesn't do to this young franchise what Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice did to the DCEU (i.e. mortally wound it). Unlike Superman and Supergirl, Clayface wasn't particularly expensive to make (somewhere in the $30 to $40 million range), so it probably won't hurt it at the box office. But, also unlike Superman and Supergirl, Clayface isn't fun to watch. Unless you're a fan of face-melting.

Rating: Ask for three-fourths of your money back and a barf bag.