James Gunn’s breakout hit “Superman” was a promising way to revive the burgeoning DC Universe, and the recently concluded HBO series “Lanterns” proved just as successful. “Supergirl,” on the other hand, was a hiccup, to say the least. Now we have “Clayface,” a body horror story for a lesser-known Batman villain. Surprisingly, given the subject matter and the obvious lack of hype before the film’s release, “Clayface” debuted to decent reviews and was significantly better received than “Supergirl.”
The film won’t be the kind of critical triumph that makes James Gunn and his DC Studios co-head, Peter Safran, purveyors of high-end, comic book-based entertainment that can stand up to the most famous dramas Hollywood has to offer. But it managed to push the Tomatometer to a respectable 73% based on a good collection of 75 reviews. The review score for “Clayface” is just two percentage points away from the “certified fresh” rating as of this writing, but that could still change. Plus, it’s enough to keep the DC horror film from earning the dreaded green spot, which is more than can be said for “Supergirl.”
While arguably one of the most underrated films of 2026, the Milly Alcock-led comic book outing only managed a relatively miserable 52% score on Rotten Tomatoes. It also only grossed $126.5 million on a budget between $170 million and $186 million. Overall then, this was the DC Universe’s first significant failure, and so far “Clayface” has at least managed to garner more impressive reviews. He failed to surpass Superman himself, however.
Clayface passed one of the most important tests for the DC Universe
Although the animated series “Creature Commandos” preceded it, “Superman” was the first major DC Universe release – and it was a success, earning $618.7 million on a $225 million budget and an 83% “certified fresh” critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. James Gunn’s take on the DC hero was a major departure from the dark days of the DC Extended Universe, which had been infused with Zack Snyder’s dreary sensibility since 2013’s “Man of Steel.” Introducing us to David Corenswet’s lovable, zany Supes in a brilliant film that wasn’t afraid to embrace hope and optimism, Gunn reinvigorated the Man of Steel for a new generation. Critics seemed to like it too.
Given this, “Clayface” was always going to struggle to top Gunn’s film. On the one hand, it’s an R-rated body horror from genre master Mike Flanagan and “Speak No Evil” director James Watkins. This immediately limits its appeal to the masses. But early reactions to “Clayface” have been positive, and now the Rotten Tomatoes score also bodes well.
While Chris Evangelista of /Film called “Clayface” a shapeless villain spin-off, many other critics were considerably more impressed with the film. Zaki Hasan of the San Francisco Chronicle focused on what might be most important about the film for Gunn and Peter Safran, writing: “As a proof of concept for a DC Universe that can accommodate stories beyond the usual superhero spectacle, it largely works.” From the start, Gunn made it clear that the DC Universe would accommodate a myriad of tones rather than sticking to a house style like the Marvel Cinematic Universe. “Clayface” is the first major test of that flexibility and, according to Hasan, Gunn and company have nailed it.
Clayface received generally positive reviews, although not all critics were convinced.
More than just proving that James Gunn and Peter Safran’s DC Universe can adapt to different styles of filmmaking, “Clayface” managed to impress several critics on its own terms. Clarisse Loughrey of The Independent praised lead actor Tom Rhys Harries for doing “much of the heavy lifting” and for projecting an air of “wounded intensity” that was not even lessened by the many layers of prosthetics involved. The Daily Telegraph’s Robbie Collin, meanwhile, wrote of “how much fun it is to soak up a film like this on what appears to be the largely free conditions of its creators”, suggesting that it did not have the same feeling of “practiced pastiche” that Zaki Hasan identified in his review.
On the other hand, many critics weren’t at all enamored with “Clayface.” Brian Truitt of USA Today criticized what he considered “a serious lack of character development”, while David Fear of Rolling Stone went a step further, comparing “Clayface” to “eating a handful of Play-Doh”, adding “and half the flavor”.
It is therefore clear that “Clayface” is not unanimous. But it generally fares better than “Supergirl,” which Adam Graham of the Detroit News called “a super disappointment” and Robbie Collin (who loved “Clayface) called “an endless orange-gray repetition of scenes from “Mad Max” and “Star Wars.” does not appear to be in danger of being overthrown in this regard.
Gn entert
