Before we start, no, this is not a movie based on the horror video game of the same name. That question seems to come up a lot whenever this movie gets discussed, so let’s just put that to bed right now. In fact, I’d argue that The Evil Within is a movie far more worth of mention than its console counterpart, in no small part for the remarkable backstory behind it.

For those of you who have never heard of it, The Evil Within is director Andrew Getty’s only film. A grandson of the incredibly wealthy (and often controversial) J Paul Getty, this was a passion project borne out of Getty’s own disturbing nightmares, which are represented here in some disturbing sequences. This was a movie that was shooting for nearly a decade, with work beginning on in 2002. Yes, that’s not a misprint – this one took fifteen years to see the light of day. Getty was meticulous and specific in how his vision should come to life, shooting most of the movie in his own mansion which he effectively transformed into a horror movie set, complete with a freshly built production studio. Even after shooting was complete, Getty spent many years editing the piece, striving for perfection before his death in 2015 from internal bleeding, allegedly exacerbated by an extensive methamphetamine habit. Work on the film was completed by producer Michael Luceri in order that a decade and a half of endeavour could finally be seen on screen.

All that alone makes this a fascinating offering, which even days after watching I still feel in two minds about. The story itself follows Dennis and his brother John, with Dennis being our lead, a young man with a learning disability struggling to make sense of his horrific nightmares. This is soon followed by a mirror version of himself, a darker version that promises it can help him if he follows its instructions. The first instruction is to kill the neighbours’ cat, but much worse is still to come. Meanwhile John faces a battle to keep his relationship together while ensuring he can care for Dennis well enough to avoid the intervention of Social Services.

On the plus side, there are distinctly chilling visuals in here, and what is widely considered an excellent lead performance from Fred Koehler, and there are bits of this that are liable to stay with me for a long time. The style is distinctive, and I’d struggle to draw an exact comparison to anything else. Michael Berryman’s limited time on screen is also very well spent, and he’s a fine antagonist when he’s present as ‘The Cadaver’.

But with all that said, there are elements in here that show this was created by a novice filmmaker. At times the script is clunky, with some logic holes clearly visible, and there are certain scenes that are hard to explain, not least an utterly bizarre ending that looks like a circus from Hell. Some things feel like they’re not quite happening in the real world, even though they are meant to be, and there are several story threads that ultimately wind up going nowhere. It would probably have been fascinating had Getty ever turned his attention to a second movie, but sadly that was not meant to be.

How to conclude this one? The Evil Within is an experience, and if you place it within the context of its creation then it certainly takes on an added significance, obviously being a deeply personal work that was the obsession of someone who ultimately never had to turn his hand to filmmaking at all. The movie cost Getty an estimated $6 million dollars of his own money, at least some of which was raised by selling his belongings, so this was certainly a labour of love. I can’t say everything hits the mark, but this one is worth seeking out as a curio if it won’t necessarily be the best movie you’re ever liable to see.

RATING: 6/10. Is The Evil Within a mess? Sort of, but part of me think that gives its origin story it was always going to be. Are there good ideas and strong visuals as part of it? Yes, they are there. Are there some fine acting performances? I’d say yes again. Does it make any great deal of sense? Often not. Should you watch it? If you find yourself drawn to the strange and the out-there tales behind the film, then you absolutely should. If none of the above background to the film interests you, then you might not get so much out of it. 6/10 feels fair all told, though I am glad that I’ve watched this one and found out that bit more about it.

Hmmm... is this as mainstream as Film Gutter has ever gone? Maybe, maybe... but to be fair there are probably a handful of mainstream or near-mainstream movies that do deserve the Film Gutter treatment. I've got a few in that sort of ballpark, the likes of Freeway and Requiem for a Dream lined up for the gutter treatment this year, but to get the ball rolling is a real cult favourite in the form of Event Horizon. Paul W.S. Anderson's bleak slice of horror sci-fi certainly has a devoted fan base, but how does it stand nearly 25 years on – and how on earth can a film released in 1997 nearly be 25 years old? That time sure shot by…

For those of you not already familiar with it – and I appreciate many of you might be – I'll give a brief precis. Captain Miller (Laurence Fishburne) leads a group of swarthy spacegoers pulled from leave for a mysterious mission. They're joined by Dr William Weir (Sam Neill), who reveals they're out to recover the lost ship Event Horizon, which was attempting to open a wormhole in space but went missing. But as soon as they get on board the seemingly abandoned ship, they find a series of strange visions and dark events waiting for them – and the steady realisation that the ship has been somewhere far beyond the realms of known space...

There are a lot of iconic moments within this movie, and I must admit that this was a rewatch that I enjoyed immensely – especially bearing in mind how many Film Gutter offerings I would shudder at the thought of coming back to. There's much to like here, with some enjoyable performances – even though some seem to be almost deliberately overdone – and an engagingly dark storyline with some great visuals. The scene in the vents where the lights go out (you'll know the one if you've seen it) remains among my favourite scenes in all of horror. The plot moves along at a good pace, and certainly keeps you on your toes as each character faces their own personal nightmares.

However, even though this is a movie I have a soft spot for, if I'm going to really look myself in the eyes, I can't say that it's a stone-cold classic of the genre. Some of that is arguably down to the fact that there is a far more unpleasant director's cut that was deeply unpopular with the company's execs, and that remains lost today – many people still hope some day to see a completely uncut version of this one, although that still seems unlikely. The CGI is the thing that has dated most horribly, and there are moments of this that are silly and over the top when watched back. The ending is a little unsatisfying, and there is at times that Hollywood horror habit to fall back on things like jumpscares and fakeouts that to me feel a little beneath a movie that has this good a concept. Everything looks decent, but Anderson is no master filmmaker – a look at his directing back catalogue will confirm that, though hats off that he's always found work and made money with his films – so there are some shots that might have been done better. There are little flashes of gory and bloody moments, but those are not as much as they might have been, so you dyed-in-the-wool gorehounds might feel this one isn't for you.

In conclusion this is a movie I do like immensely, but it's only fair to recognise its shortcomings – and if that uncut version does ever see the light of day, that will probably be even more down Film Gutter's alley...

RATING: 7.5/10. Is it a move I like a lot? Yes, yes it is. But I think some of that is more emotional and connected to the memories of it, and if I'm going to properly put on my reviewer's hat and look critically this is a movie that does have some flaws and could ultimately have been done better. It's one I'll likely come back to again, and if you like sci-fi horror this is definitely worth watching. It's not as extreme as some we've watched, but it's certainly a fun concept and could work better for a few of our more squeamish readers...

It's the time of the week again, and for this one it's a trip to South Korea. Not somewhere we've often touched down in our nearly six years of reviewing, but I've seen a whole host of very good non-extreme horror out of the country, so despite knowing precious little about Moebius I came in here with high expectations.

And I'm pleased to say Moebius went and shattered them anyway. This was not simply good – this was superb, and in no time has thrown in a claim to be one of my favourite horror films ever as well as being a top-five contender in the all-time Film Gutter list. Not something I say lightly, so let’s explore just what makes this film so great….

This is not an easy film to latch onto, and I expect there's only a limited amount I can do to truly get this one over. The story basically follows just four unnamed characters – a father and son who are the main focus of the piece, a mother who features but is slightly more transient, and a young lady who works at a convenience store close to their home who goes on to be a love interest (of sorts?) for the son. The reason no-one has a name is that the movie has no dialogue whatsoever, so there's never an opportunity to name anyone. The most we ever get are laughter, or gasps, or noises, and the odd scene of someone talking on the phone – from a distance, though, so we can't hear the conversation. Some might argue this is gimmicky, but I'd heartily defend it – an argument I'll come back to shortly.

The story begins at full throttle, with mother and father having a falling out before the mum goes and removes her son's... well... member. Ouch. This hangs over much of the movie, as the son tries and largely fails to adjust to this new life while the father tries to find some way to fix it, spending a lot of time looking at penis transplant surgery. The mother drifts off with a stranger for some of the story, only returning for a truly bizarre finale. The story switches focus for much of its runtime to the equally strange relationship between the son and the shop girl (desperately looking for shorthands for characters in lieu of actual names here!) who is raped by his new friends before forging a sort of semi-sexual relationship with the son of the family, where she can bring him to orgasm by cutting or scraping his skin.

That probably all sound batshit crazy – mostly because it is. But the whole thing is artfully done, and for me was more a modern take at a Greek tragedy than anything, a totally weird and dark tale barely rooted in the real world despite ostensibly taking place within it. The runtime shot by as the story took one unexpected turn after the other, and I think all the actors involved deserve massive credit for pulling this off without one of them ever speaking. There's never a moment of doubt what anyone is feeling, and to deliver that with only facial expression and body language is really something.

This one was certainly a fascinating offering, and I couldn't think of much to compare it to apart from those old tales of Zeus and the gods of Olympus I just mentioned, with all their taboo and boundary breaking. Many have put the spin on the film that this is also a sort of Buddhist fable – and there are allusions to it in the film itself – and while I couldn't strongly disagree, I don't really know enough about the subject matter to tell you for sure.

What I can tell you is if you like your movies surreal, bleak and uneasy then this could be one for you to check out – it's certainly my favourite of 2021 so far, and it wouldn't be any surprise at all if it kept that status intact until December.

RATING: 10/10. What else were you expecting from my effusive stylings here? A really refreshing movie that kept me guessing all the way, expertly delivered not only from behind the camera but by actors without a single line of dialogue in the piece. What must this script have looked like, I wonder? It's fair to say this won't be for everybody, but this one ticked every box for me, and it has to be top marks at 10/10.

Welcome back to the final installment of Cronenberg month, where this time around we'll be taking a look at one of the director's better-known movies, the telepathic odyssey that is Scanners. Hard to believe this one was released the year I was born, but there you go. Even if you haven't seen this movie for yourself, there's a reasonable chance that you'll recognise the moment where a character's head explodes from its various uses as an internet meme. Of course that's a memorable scene, but there's plenty more to this feature than just that one thing – so let's get into it, shall we...

The story follows Cameron Vale, a shiftless drifter with a dangerous secret – he can 'scan' people, effectively a form of telepathy that allows him to read the thoughts of others as well as affecting the minds of those around him (if he really puts the effort into it). However all those streams of subconscious thought are rather overwhelming, until he is discovered by Dr Paul Ruth an introduced to Ephemerol, a drug that can reduce the volume of thoughts and allow clarity to re-emerge. But Ruth has a motive beyond purely helping out – there is a dangerous rogue Scanner out there in the form of Daryll Revok, and it's up to Vale to help stop him before he kills the entirety of the Scanner underground. What follows is a dark tale of underground intrigue so typical of the Cronenberg 'brand' at this point, but probably the best he had delivered up until this stage.

There's plenty to like here, and it's not surprising this one has cemented a firm place as a favourite in the director's back catalogue. While the technology involved here clearly dates it, if you view it as a sort of time capsule it still holds up really well today. Stephen Lack is perfectly serviceable in the lead, deliberately playing things down for this own sanity, while there are great turns from Jennifer O'Neill and specifically Michael Ironside, who has always been a great movie bad guy and shines in his limited screen time here. Patrick McGoohan also does a fine job as Dr Paul Ruth. All of that is backed up by an intriguing storyline that takes you down numerous twists and turns, delving deeper and deeper into the secret world of Scanners, its internal politics and just how much people outside of the group would love to exploit their potent powers. It certainly suggests a much wider world, and the ending does leave things fascinatingly open-ended. While there were sequels to this, as well as neo-sequels in the form of the Scanner Cop movies, none of those had Cronenberg involved and as such I've not checked those out. It's possible they may continue the story, but I couldn't say for sure. It would have been great to see Cronenberg come back or, if I can dare say the word, maybe see some sort of remake in the near future? It's pretty rare you hear me say that, although there could be something to a modern spin on this one.

RATING: 9/10. Not really much to criticise here, and you'd have to nitpick pretty hard not to get something out of this one. This feels like we're getting ever closer to the David Cronenberg that would ultimately bring us stone-cold body horror classics like Videodrome and The Fly, and certainly ranks the best of what we've seen so far this month. There are some strong acting performances from a great cast, a really interesting and powerful core concept, plenty of surprises and unexpected moments within the plot and a really likeable finale that did rather beg for a Cronenberg-led sequel that sadly we never got. Obviously there were bigger fish to fry elsewhere for the director, and looking at what followed he probably made the right decision to leave this setting behind ultimately. So it's a striking 9/10 – and you didn't even need to read my mind to know it would get that sort of mark...