Horror Film Review: Clayface (dir. by James Watkins)


“Even if it kills me, I’ll be better off than I am now.” — Matt Hagen

The most unsettling thing about Clayface isn’t watching a man lose his face; it’s realizing how much of his life was built around having the right one. James Watkins’ take on the DC villain turns that insecurity into a nasty little body-horror tragedy, following someone who has confused being desirable with being worth something. Beneath the collapsing features and increasingly grotesque transformations is a recognizable fear: that losing the thing people admire about you means losing their interest altogether. The film doesn’t explore that idea as deeply as it could, but it gives the horror a compelling emotional foundation beyond the spectacle of a comic-book monster taking shape.

At the center is Matt Hagen, played by Tom Rhys Harries, an actor whose rising career is derailed by a disfiguring attack. His appearance has opened doors for him, and losing it threatens more than his next role. It destroys the version of himself he thought he could count on. Desperate for a way back, he turns to Dr. Caitlyn Corr, played by Naomi Ackie, whose experimental treatment promises to repair the damage. Naturally, the results come with complications. The interesting question isn’t whether the miracle will turn into a nightmare, but how much Matt is willing to overlook once he starts recognizing himself in the mirror again.

That desperation makes Matt more compelling than a character who simply gets powers and becomes dangerous. His problem begins before his body starts changing: he already depends on other people to tell him what he’s worth. That insecurity connects naturally to his profession. An actor who can physically become someone else sounds like a wish fulfilled, until transformation stops being a choice. There’s a cruel logic to giving someone obsessed with recovering his identity a body that won’t hold one. The screenplay occasionally spells things out too neatly, but the central idea gives the nastiness something to work with beyond its shock value.

Harries does a lot to keep that idea grounded. He makes Matt’s appeal believable without turning him into someone whose suffering automatically excuses everything he does. His desperation is understandable even when his choices become selfish or disturbing, and the performance handles that balance well. His humiliation doesn’t immediately become theatrical rage. It lingers, making him defensive, needy, and increasingly willing to justify himself. Even when the movie pushes him toward more recognizable villain territory, Harries preserves traces of the frightened person underneath. Matt doesn’t have to remain likable to remain interesting, and the performance understands the difference between earning sympathy and demanding it.

Ackie gives the film another human connection that it needs. Corr could have been little more than the scientist who introduces the treatment and explains why everybody should be worried. Instead, her warmth complicates a relationship already shaped by unequal needs. Matt wants his life back; she wants her work to succeed. Those desires overlap without being identical, making their connection more engaging than the mechanics of the experiment. The romantic element also gives their scenes a tragic-monster quality. Not every emotional beat lands with equal force, but the performances keep their relationship from feeling like a mandatory break between transformations.

Those transformations are where Watkins delivers the movie’s most immediate pleasures, assuming “pleasures” is the right word for watching somebody’s anatomy stop cooperating. The real discomfort comes from the instability. A face should stay recognizable even when everything else changes, and Clayface makes that familiarity feel temporary. The makeup and prosthetic work give Matt’s deterioration an unpleasant physical texture, encouraging a queasy fascination with damage that’s difficult to look at and harder to ignore. At its best, the body horror feels wet, awkward, and difficult to contain rather than polished into something comfortably spectacular. There’s enough physical nastiness here to give Matt’s desperation a genuinely disturbing shape.

Even without the DC Comics pedigree or the connection to Batman, Clayface would still be a compelling body-horror film. The recognizable name might get people interested, but Matt’s desperation, the disturbing effects, and the tragedy of losing control over his identity are what make it work. There’s no need to know where he fits into Gotham or who he might eventually fight. His story has enough emotional weight and gruesome imagination to stand on its own. The comic-book background adds another layer, but it isn’t holding the movie together. That independence makes it feel like an actual horror story rather than franchise homework dressed up with gore.

For an R-rated body-horror film, though, Clayface plays it surprisingly safe. That might sound odd given the grotesque imagery, but graphic violence and genuinely unsettling ideas aren’t the same thing. There are moments when Matt’s transformation seems ready to take the movie somewhere stranger, only for it to retreat toward familiar revenge-thriller territory. The issue isn’t simply that it needs more blood or more elaborate effects. A more Cronenbergian approach could have pushed further into how his changing body alters his desires, his relationships, and his understanding of himself. The film is willing to make Matt look monstrous, but more hesitant to explore what becoming something other than human might actually feel like.

That restraint becomes especially noticeable as Matt gains control over his abilities. Early on, his body feels like a threat he can’t escape. Later, it increasingly becomes a weapon. The shift makes sense for the story, but it changes the experience from watching someone endure a nightmare to watching him inflict one. There’s nasty fun in that, especially when the film embraces its lurid side, but his inability to trust his own body generates more unease than his ability to make other people afraid of it. As the confrontations become more conventional, the movie sacrifices some of the uncertainty that makes its earlier stretches so effective.

The comparisons with The Fly and Darkman are hard to avoid, from scientific possibility curdling into catastrophe to the disfigured man pursuing revenge. The relationship between appearance and personal value also invites comparisons with The Substance. Those connections help explain the film’s appeal, but they highlight what feels underdeveloped, too. Clayface has an industry full of people who judge surfaces and a protagonist whose surface becomes impossible to maintain. That’s fertile ground. Sometimes the movie digs into it; sometimes it settles for a familiar revenge beat with a more disgusting visual payoff. The latter can be entertaining without being quite as satisfying.

Even with those reservations, Clayface succeeds because enough humanity survives beneath the grotesquerie. Harries gives the film a wounded center, while Ackie helps keep its emotional stakes from disappearing into the effects work. Watkins delivers the gruesome spectacle, but the sadness underneath gives it staying power. The film doesn’t fully realize its strongest ideas, and its reluctance to follow them into truly uncomfortable territory keeps it from becoming something exceptional. Still, its best moments make physical transformation feel painfully personal. Matt can change his appearance, but finding a face he can live with turns out to be the harder problem.

Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (dir. by Tomas Alfredson)


“We are not so very different, you and I.” — George Smiley

Tomas Alfredson’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) is a cold, coiled, and relentless march into the gray, rain-lashed corridors of British espionage—a film that exchanges Bond’s swagger for bureaucratic unease, where information is traded like poison and every conversation feels weaponized. The film is sheer confidence: so sure of itself, it expects you to keep up, get lost, and piece the puzzle together from the hushed fragments left in close-up reactions and glances across smoke-filled rooms. This is spy cinema not as spectacle, but as slow-burning existential puzzle.

A key element of the film’s mood is its distinctive brutalist aesthetic, which powerfully evokes the Cold War mentality not only behind the Iron Curtain but also in the West. Alfredson and cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema immerse viewers in a London setting defined by greying, tired walls, bleak drizzle, and decaying interiors that feel as cold and institutional as the very espionage world they depict. This use of brutalism—with its bare concrete textures, utilitarian spaces, and sense of institutional decay—does more than create atmosphere; it visually projects the emotional and material exhaustion of a Britain entrenched in paranoia and internal rot. The characters seem physically and emotionally hemmed in by these spaces, reinforcing the film’s themes of secrecy, alienation, and moral corrosion.

There are no car chases or shootouts to speak of—just a masterclass in stillness where tension arises from precisely what remains unspoken. The film is closer to an autopsy than a thriller, dissecting the social and emotional costs of lives devoted to deception. It begins with a botched operation in Budapest—Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), one of “the Circus’s” best agents, is captured in a tense, almost wordless scene that sets a tone of brooding unease. The fallout leads to a purge of the leadership, with Control (John Hurt) forced out and George Smiley (Gary Oldman), his quietly watchful confidant, retired—though soon to return for an unofficial mole hunt.

From there, the narrative unfolds elliptically, like a mosaic of recollections and betrayals, requiring viewers to assemble the truth from fractured glimpses. Gary Oldman’s Smiley is the film’s anchor—his performance a masterclass in minimalism and subtext. He’s the ultimate observer, haunted by decades of institutional compromises and personal betrayals.

The supporting cast is nothing short of exceptional, elevating the film through richly textured performances that bring vibrant life to an otherwise reserved script. Colin Firth as Bill Haydon delivers a quietly magnetic portrayal, his charm barely concealing the complexity beneath. Tom Hardy’s Ricki Tarr injects raw energy and restlessness, perfectly contrasting the film’s restrained atmosphere. Benedict Cumberbatch’s Peter Guillam is adept at conveying subtle shifts in allegiance and tension, his nuanced portrayal deepening the intrigue. John Hurt’s brief but potent presence as Control exudes weary gravitas, setting the tone for the murky world of espionage. Mark Strong as Jim Prideaux balances stoicism with vulnerable humanity, particularly in moments laden with pain and regret. Other supporting actors such as Ciarán Hinds, Toby Jones, and Kathy Burke contribute layered, compelling portrayals of individuals trapped within the machinery of the Circus. What binds these performances is a reliance on subtlety—expressing volumes through nuanced gestures and lingering silences, the cast anchors the complex narrative in a palpable human reality.

At its core, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is less a whodunnit than an exploration of institutional decay and emotional repression. The brutalist aesthetic mirrors this decline: just as the concrete and ochre walls close in on the agents, so too does the film reveal a Britain worn down by secrets and internal contradiction. Love and loyalty are liabilities in this world where everyone is alienated. The story’s emotional heart revolves around the search for a deeply embedded mole within the Circus—an elusive betrayal that shakes the organization to its core. The film carefully avoids easy reveals, maintaining a deliberate tension and exemplifying the emotional cost that the espionage game of the era had on everyone involved.

The film also explores themes of repressed queerness, class stratification, and misogyny, linking these to the numbing demands of espionage. The gloomy visuals and tightly controlled dialogue echo the emotional constraints on these men, underscoring that beneath the seemingly impenetrable exterior lies a fragile, fragile human cost.

This film is not an easy watch. Its elliptical storytelling, coded conversations, and subtle body language demand patience and multiple viewings. Yet that opacity is part of its power—uncertainty and not-knowing become central to the experience, enhanced by Alberto Iglesias’s restrained score and the claustrophobic mise-en-scène. Unlike many spy films, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is about process and detection, not action or glamour. Its cold, meticulous pacing trades on the cerebral seduction of uncovering hidden truths rather than adrenaline-fueled confrontations.

Ultimately, the film refuses easy resolutions. Though Smiley uncovers the mole and the Circus is superficially restored, there’s no real victory—only the acknowledgment of profound damage, both personal and institutional. The brutalist setting, with its unyielding, somber lines, stands as a perfect metaphor for this unresolved tension. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a masterclass in unease and ambiguity, a film that stays with you because it reveals what you’ll never fully know about loyalty, betrayal, and the cost of secrets in a world where the line between friend and enemy is always blurred.

Brad reviews MEN & CHICKEN (2015), starring Mads Mikkelsen!


MEN & CHICKEN (2015) is the story of two estranged, and flat out strange, brothers, Gabriel (David Dencik) and Elias (Mads Mikkelsen), who find out a family secret when their father passes away. It turns out that their “dad” is not their biological father, so the two brothers head out to find their real one. They know he’s a reclusive scientist named Evelio Thanatos, and that he lives on a remote island. When they arrive on his island, they meet their three half-brothers Josef (Nicolas Bro), Gregor (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) and Franz (Soren Malling), who are some real weirdos, and who are prone to violently beat visitors in the head with heavy cookware and stuffed beavers. After taking a couple of beatings from their brothers, Gabriel and Elias are able to work their way into their family’s dilapidated mansion where they find that it is filled with chickens, pigs and a bull named Isak. This is a strange group, with each brother exhibiting certain physical abnormalities and odd behaviors. There’s something dark going on here… and why won’t their new brothers let Gabriel and Elias meet their dad, who apparently sleeps all day in an upstairs room? The remainder of the film deals with the brothers getting to know each other and discovering their family’s deep, dark, animalistic secrets!

I’ve presented a plot summary of MEN & CHICKEN above, but no summary can really do this film justice. It’s a film that has to be seen to be believed. The first thing I really noted about the film is its complete commitment to its weird tone and a twisted sense of humor. We meet Mikkelsen’s character Elias on the most awkward date ever, which he follows up by going to the bathroom and immediately masturbating. We soon learn that masturbating is just something he always has to do. The way his brother accepts the behavior as if it’s no different than him tying his shoes is odd and funny at the same time. There’s also a sight gag early in the film where Gabriel is watching from afar as his brother is being beaten repeatedly in the head by kitchen pots the size of bathtubs that made me laugh out loud. Of course, it’s meant to be funny, but the film’s visuals are also realistic enough that when we see Elias up close his face is a bloody mess! I haven’t watched a lot of Danish films in my life, but I’m starting to get a sense of just how twisted their senses of humor can get! Director and writer Anders Thomas Jensen is somehow able to balance the dark comedy of his setup, the strange nature of the characters he’s created, and the grotesque, horrific visuals that we see inside their family home in a way that’s both absurd and increasingly poignant as the film continues on. I’m so used to movies that follow the same plot points and formulas, but Jensen’s films are wildly unpredictable. You truly never know what you’re about to see next, to both good and bad effect, but it’s definitely not boring!

Mads Mikkelsen is incredible as brother Elias. This role could not possibly be farther away from his repressed badass in Jensen’s RIDERS OF JUSTICE, but you can’t take your eyes off of him. As odd and repulsive as his character can be, the actor’s instincts for absurd comedy are perfectly on display and he’s incredible. I also liked actor David Dencik as his brother Gabriel. His more “normal” character grounds the film as all sorts of craziness is going on around him. They complement each other well. I also recognized Nikolaj Lie Kaas and Nicolas Bro as two of the odd brothers, who were also in RIDERS OF JUSTICE. It’s fun seeing Jensen’s stock players in such unique and versatile performances.

After having now watched Jensen’s films MEN & CHICKEN and RIDERS OF JUSTICE, one of the things I’m picking up on is his ability to create an endearing “family” out of almost any kind of circumstances. These are some of the most strange and troubled people that you will ever see on screen, but beneath the perversity of it all, a theme emerges on the power and acceptance that can be experienced inside of a family, and, ultimately, on the nature of humanity itself. It may not be altogether realistic, but there’s an idealism and hope that resonates with me. 

As I wrap this up, let me just say that MEN & CHICKEN is not for everyone, so I can’t recommend it wholeheartedly. It goes to some deep, dark places in both its humor and the revelation of their dad’s disturbing scientific experiments. However, adventurous viewers with a perverse sense of humor and a willingness to follow a story wherever it may lead will be rewarded by this wholly unique film. A 25 year old me would have probably not been a fan, but 50+ year old me thinks it’s great!!

Film Review: The Snowman (dir by Tomas Alfredson)


So, I finally watched the 2018 thriller, The Snowman, and my main reaction to the film is that it featured a lot of snow.

That’s understandable, of course.  The film takes place in Norway and it’s called The Snowman so, naturally, I wasn’t expecting a lot of sunshine.  Still, after a while, the constant shots of the snow-covered landscape start to feel like almost some sort of an inside joke.  It’s almost as if the film is daring you to try to find one blade of grass in Norway.  Of course, the snow is important because the film’s about a serial killer who builds snowmen at the sites of his crimes.  They’re usually pretty big snowmen as well.  It’s hard not to be a little impressed by the fact that he could apparently make such impressive snowmen without anyone noticing.

Along with the snow, the other thing that I noticed about this movie is that apparently no one knows how to flip a light switch in Norway.  This is one of those films where every scene seems to take place in a dark room.  I found myself worrying about everyone’s eyesight and I was surprised the everyone in the film wasn’t wearing glasses.  I can only imagine how much strain that puts on the eyes when you’re constantly trying to read and look for clues in the dark.

Michael Fassbender plays Harry Hole, a Norwegian police inspector who may be troubled but still gets results!  He’s upset because his ex-girlfriend (Charlotte Gainsbourg) has a new boyfriend (Jonas Karlsson).  He’s also upset because his son (Michael Yates) doesn’t know that Harry is actually his father.  Or, at least, I think that Harry’s upset.  It’s hard to tell because Fassbender gives a performance that’s almost as cold as the snow covering the Norwegian ground.  Of course, he’s always watchable because he’s Fassbender.  But, overall, he doesn’t seem to be particularly invested in either the role or the film.

Harry and his new partner (Rebecca Ferguson) are investigating a missing person’s case, which quickly turns into a multiple murder mystery.  It turns out that the crimes are linked to a bunch of old murders, all of which were investigated by a detective named Gert Rafto (Val Kilmer).  Gert was troubled but he still got results!  Or, at least, Harry thinks that he may have gotten results.  Nine years ago, Rafto died under mysterious circumstances…

Now, I have to admit that when, 30 minutes into the film, the words “9 years earlier” flashed on the screen, I groaned a bit.  I mean, it seemed to me that the movie was already slow enough without tossing in a bunch of flashbacks.  However, I quickly came to look forward to those brief flashbacks, mostly because they featured Val Kilmer in total IDGAF mode.  Kilmer stumbles through the flashbacks, complete with messy hair and a look of genuine snarky bemusement on his face.  Kilmer gives such a weird and self-amused performance that his brief scenes are the highlight of the film.

Before it was released, The Snowman was hyped as a potential Oscar contender.  After the movie came out and got roasted by the critics, director Tomas Alfredson replied that the studio forced him to rush through the production and that 10 to 15% of the script went unfilmed.  Considering Alfredson’s superior work on Let The Right One In and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.  The film’s disjointed style would certainly seem to back up Alfredson’s claim that there was originally meant to be more to the film than actually ended up on the screen.

The Snowman is one of those films that doesn’t seem to be sure what it wants to be.  At times, it aspires to David Lynch-style surrealism while, at other times, it seems to be borrowing from the morally ambiguous crime films of Taylor Sheridan.  Ultimately, it’s a confused film that doesn’t seem to have much reason for existing.  At the same time, I’ve also been told that the Jo Nesbø novel upon which the movie is based is excellent.  The same author also wrote the novel that served as the basis for 2011’s Headhunters, which was pretty damn good.  So, read the book and ignore the film.