Ry Barrett as “Johnny” in Chris Nash’s IN A VIOLENT NATURE. Courtesy of Pierce Derks. An IFC Films & Shudder Release.
In a Violent Nature is an oddly contemplative horror movie. Few films of this kind really offer an opportunity to reflect on the grim events unfolding. For all the ferocity of a Fred Krueger or Vorhees, the kills are quick even when extreme. Here the horror is the time an audience is allowed to wonder just what it feels like to be so thoroughly brutalized. Unfortunately, this meditative aspect is often its undoing.
The story is a tale almost as old as time. Ry Barret portrays an unstoppable homicidal juggernaut who rises to slaughter teens in the woods. This mute, unflinching force of one kills with extreme brutality. However, the motive is hard to pin down. Regardless of how much this latest slasher variant is moved by campfire origin stories, the reason for the bloodshed seems secondary.
The story is a tale almost as old as time. Ry Barret portrays an unstoppable homicidal juggernaut who rises to slaughter teens in the woods. This mute, unflinching force of one kills with extreme brutality. However, the motive is hard to pin down. Regardless of how much this latest slasher variant is moved by campfire origin stories, the reason for the bloodshed seems secondary.
Timothy Paul McCarthy in Chris Nash’s IN A VIOLENT NATURE. Courtesy of Pierce Derks. An IFC Films & Shudder Release.
In a Violent Nature describes itself as an “ambient slasher” flick. Playing off the predictable nature of such storylines, writer-director Chris Nash focuses on the cinematic effort to present events from the brute’s perspective. This results in minimalist storytelling, counting on audiences to be so well versed in slasher clichés there’s no need for narrative. That expectation permits a cinematic experiment in horror moviemaking that hits as often as it misses.
On the one hand, In a Violent Nature does a remarkable job of making viewers think about its villainous protagonist. The movie is essentially a ride along sitting shotgun during a killing spree. It’s a borderline documentary simply presenting grim events. There’s also a strange way the film shows how close humans are to danger, especially when it comes to nature. Often it seems like people are inviting their own demise by having loud boorish conversations, turning on lights in the dark woods, etc. As such, there’s a minimization of humanity, represented brilliantly when a dead body is kicked down a ridge. The camera is so far back the corpse is easy to lose among woodland debris, and it looks insignificantly small in comparison to the surrounding forest. It sparks the unsettling question if these deaths have any meaning at all.
Yet, In a Violent Nature can be a bit of a drag. Following the relentless brute powerwalking around the woods can get old. Initially it’s interesting, especially how the film sets up why the slasher chooses one route or another. The quiet forest allows for campfire banter to catch attention and the dark night almost accentuates a small flame in the distance. However, the cleverness falls away after one or two scenes, and any point being made is simply repeated.
On the one hand, In a Violent Nature does a remarkable job of making viewers think about its villainous protagonist. The movie is essentially a ride along sitting shotgun during a killing spree. It’s a borderline documentary simply presenting grim events. There’s also a strange way the film shows how close humans are to danger, especially when it comes to nature. Often it seems like people are inviting their own demise by having loud boorish conversations, turning on lights in the dark woods, etc. As such, there’s a minimization of humanity, represented brilliantly when a dead body is kicked down a ridge. The camera is so far back the corpse is easy to lose among woodland debris, and it looks insignificantly small in comparison to the surrounding forest. It sparks the unsettling question if these deaths have any meaning at all.
Yet, In a Violent Nature can be a bit of a drag. Following the relentless brute powerwalking around the woods can get old. Initially it’s interesting, especially how the film sets up why the slasher chooses one route or another. The quiet forest allows for campfire banter to catch attention and the dark night almost accentuates a small flame in the distance. However, the cleverness falls away after one or two scenes, and any point being made is simply repeated.
Ry Barrett as “Johnny” in Chris Nash’s IN A VIOLENT NATURE. Courtesy of Pierce Derks. An IFC Films & Shudder Release.
Furthermore, the minimalist story telling loses its luster now and again when In a Violent Nature attempts to establish lore. Granted, the film does an interesting job of leaving the urban legend slightly open-ended. Just because characters express what they think is happening isn’t necessarily the case. I’m sure certain audience members will love speculating on which bits are the real truth. The downside is that these moments become cinematic slogs as one character or another exposition dumps in a monologue. The film is already a crawl, creepy as it may be, but these moments become a legless person with one arm trying to drag themselves across the forest floor.
Of course, no slasher flick is complete without kills. In that respect, In a Violent Nature has some fantastically brutal scenes guaranteed to go down in horror history. Describing any of them would deprive viewers of the singular experience of seeing them for the first time. While the movie is never a bloodbath, there’s an eerie cruelty and savagery rivaled only by the likes of Terrifier 2 (2022).
Comparisons to other fright flicks such as the Friday the 13th franchise or Hatchet films are inevitable. However, they may miss the point. In a Violent Nature isn’t trying to tread new narrative territory so much as carve out a fresh perspective. In certain ways it echoes the novel Grendel by John Gardner, though the movie wisely never makes its murderer sympathetic. But it does lean into a postmodern appreciation for the tragedy of such an individual: doomed to endless Sisyphean slaughter.
Of course, no slasher flick is complete without kills. In that respect, In a Violent Nature has some fantastically brutal scenes guaranteed to go down in horror history. Describing any of them would deprive viewers of the singular experience of seeing them for the first time. While the movie is never a bloodbath, there’s an eerie cruelty and savagery rivaled only by the likes of Terrifier 2 (2022).
Comparisons to other fright flicks such as the Friday the 13th franchise or Hatchet films are inevitable. However, they may miss the point. In a Violent Nature isn’t trying to tread new narrative territory so much as carve out a fresh perspective. In certain ways it echoes the novel Grendel by John Gardner, though the movie wisely never makes its murderer sympathetic. But it does lean into a postmodern appreciation for the tragedy of such an individual: doomed to endless Sisyphean slaughter.
Ry Barrett as “Johnny” in Chris Nash’s IN A VIOLENT NATURE. Courtesy of Pierce Derks. An IFC Films & Shudder Release.
Still, genre exploration is no excuse for certain imperfections. The dialogue of In a Violent Nature is clichéd to put it kindly. Although that may be arguably intentional it doesn’t improve the quality. And once audiences know the words don’t matter—these are standard slasher conversations moving a parallel plot forward—it just makes what people are saying meaningless to the point of being boring. Worse, most of these conversations occur at a distance so are nearly impossible to hear. Anyone watching this flick on streaming will have to turn their volume to max or employ closed captions. It’s truly frustrating straining to hear dialogue only to realize it’s formulaic to the point of meaningless.
That said, writer-director Chris Nash has paved a new path full of potential for horror movies. Where it leads or how many will follow is a question that only time can answer. In a Violent Nature isn’t perfect, but it feels fresh despite the familiar territory it treads. This revitalization is great, and exactly what every genre needs when things get stale. There’s nothing wrong with plain garlic bread, but that doesn’t mean a bit of gochujang can’t spice things up making the old seem new.
However, those looking for a gory bloodbath full of one kill after the other should measure their expectations. The deaths in this are gruesome, however In a Violent Nature hardly has the body count of films like Halloween Kills with its 31 slaughters or The Summer of Massacre (2011) with a world record 155 kills. The upside, though, is that besides being bloody, brutal nightmare fuel each demise is memorable.
In a Violent Nature can be admired for trying something different. Horror fans will certainly enjoy giving it a go at least once. And with any luck, besides bad dreams, it’ll inspire future filmmakers to follow this trail.
That said, writer-director Chris Nash has paved a new path full of potential for horror movies. Where it leads or how many will follow is a question that only time can answer. In a Violent Nature isn’t perfect, but it feels fresh despite the familiar territory it treads. This revitalization is great, and exactly what every genre needs when things get stale. There’s nothing wrong with plain garlic bread, but that doesn’t mean a bit of gochujang can’t spice things up making the old seem new.
However, those looking for a gory bloodbath full of one kill after the other should measure their expectations. The deaths in this are gruesome, however In a Violent Nature hardly has the body count of films like Halloween Kills with its 31 slaughters or The Summer of Massacre (2011) with a world record 155 kills. The upside, though, is that besides being bloody, brutal nightmare fuel each demise is memorable.
In a Violent Nature can be admired for trying something different. Horror fans will certainly enjoy giving it a go at least once. And with any luck, besides bad dreams, it’ll inspire future filmmakers to follow this trail.
RSS Feed
