In a Violent Nature (2024)

​“In a Violent Nature” stars Ry Barrett, Andrea Pavlovic, Cameron Love, Reece Presley, Liam Leone, Charlotte Creaghan, Lea Rose Sebastianis, Sam Roulston, Alexander Oliver, Lauren-Marie Taylor, and Timothy Paul McCarthy.  Released on May 31, 2024, the film has a masked killer targeting a group of teenagers in the wilderness.

The film is written and directed by Chris Nash, who’s known for writing and directing one of the segments of “ABCs of Death 2”.  Many horror movies depict a group of teens hanging out only to have their lives cut short by a deranged maniac or something supernatural.  It’s a tradition as old as time, yet people can’t get enough of it, with “Friday the 13th” being one of the examples of how iconic this narrative has become.  But, occasionally, we’ve grown sick of seeing these teens make dumb decisions and provide headache-inducing melodrama for ninety minutes straight.  Sometimes, we just want to watch the mayhem unfold from the perspective of their ruthless predator.  Thankfully, our wish has finally been granted by horror filmmaker Chris Nash, whose experimental slasher film impressed horror fans and critics alike at the Sundance Film Festival back in January.  It sounds like somebody has been reading our twisted minds.  Now that it’s been released in the United States thanks to Shudder, does this refreshing take on the classic narrative offer enough bloody chaos to reinvigorate the genre, or does it make us want to hang out with the teenagers instead?  Let’s find out. 

The story centers on Johnny (Barrett), a mysterious, disfigured man murdered by a horrific 60-year-old crime.  His corpse is buried by a collapsed fire tower in the woods, held by a locket hanging onto its tomb.  When the locket is removed, Johnny’s body is resurrected, resulting in him wandering around the forest destined to retrieve it.  Armed with a firefighting mask and several deadly weapons, Johnny unleashes his wrath on a group of teenagers amid his quest in gory ways.       

This was another horror movie that piqued my curiosity regarding its idea and trailer, more so than the other modern slasher ones.  Sure, it follows the traditional structure of teens getting butchered by a masked killer one by one, but it’s also displayed from the killer’s point of view, offering audiences a look at what they see before going for their kills.  When I saw it playing at my closest theater, I just had to know how this experimental structure plays out amid my need for slasher goodness.  Considering that the last two horror movies I watched this month were mind-numbingly braindead, it’s unsurprising I was in dire need of another good horror film in the same veins as “Late Night with the Devil”, “Abigail”, and “The First Omen”.  The question is, how good was it?  Well, it’s certainly more enjoyable than “Tarot” and the new “Strangers” film, but it’s also not as groundbreaking as its experimental approach.

The thing about experimental films like “In a Violent Nature” is that they aren’t afraid to take certain risks in their traditional narratives and technical aspects.  They create something refreshing that makes us see cinematic storytelling differently and reinvigorates the tropes that have been done multiple times.  “In a Violent Nature” is a straightforward slasher film told from the perspective of the demonic masked killer.  Throughout its runtime, Johnny takes the audience on his blood-soaked journey to retrieve something precious from his past and even massacre those standing in his way after being resurrected.  It even draws inspiration from slow cinema, Gus Van Sant, and Terrence Malick regarding its slow-burn narrative and observational elements.  So, don’t expect this one to be like the other fast-paced slasher movies that came before it.  I do what I can to decipher what the director is going for and what should be done to make these types of movies stand out, as I’ve always done for modern films.  A fresh idea alone doesn’t guarantee a good movie, as it must be accompanied by its execution and engaging narrative.  

"In a Violent Nature" had a captivating concept that was well executed in the first act, particularly under the direction of Chris Nash.  Nash created a slow-burning but chilling portrayal that effectively conveyed the sense of being in close proximity to the killer.  Rather than fearing where Johnny might be, the audience is left worrying about what Johnny might do to his victims, with no way of stopping him.  The absence of a musical score also contributed to the authenticity of the film's tension and the isolation of the forest.  The movie also displayed the killer’s fundamentals of his murders front and center through its mesmerizing long-take cinematography and visual effects, especially when he’s sneaking up on them.  For the latter, the movie provided plenty of practical effects that capture the old-school Grindhouse feel from the 70s, mainly for the kills, which have been hyped up for being gnarly and gross.  There was one kill Johnny performed that was actually quite clever, but the rest didn’t exactly live up to my expectations despite being delightfully sick.

Unfortunately, despite its impressive cinematography and enjoyable kills, the movie struggled to do much else with this idea for the rest of the film.  As I mentioned, “In a Violent Nature” is a simplistic and constrained slasher movie told from the killer’s perspective.  However, it does occasionally switch its focus to the teenagers, especially in the third act, which I found to be a bit disappointing.  Besides that, you’re stuck hanging out with Johnny as he slowly makes his way through the forest, waiting to make a move on his unsuspecting victims.  It didn’t do much to reinvigorate its formula full of one-dimensional characters and cliches, but that doesn’t make Johnny’s perspective much better.  While the long take shots were quite impressive, they came with the cost of its pacing.  Despite the film being a bit over 90 minutes long, it had a few sequences of nothingness that made it feel like it was ten minutes longer.  It doesn’t help that the pacing also cuts down on some of the film’s tension because of those scenes.  It’s basically more of a waiting game, with the prizes being Johnny’s gruesome confrontations.  It shows that slow cinema may not be for everybody in terms of its execution, but I can see it satisfying those who don't mind it.

Overall, “In a Violent Nature” is a distinctively gruesome gore-fest whose immersive style struggles to drive its idea further through its constrained nature.  It is definitely a unique experience that might interest genre fans and experimental cinema followers with its refreshing direction, cinematography, and Grindhouse-like effects.  However, it can also be a tough sell to everyone else outside its target audience.  Despite being another slasher film, it’s more of a slow-burning and observational depiction of a disrupted killer’s rampage.  While it isn’t without moments of gore and tension, the film’s pacing and formulaic plot can leave specific viewers bored or disappointed.  As for me, I enjoyed it for what it’s attempting to do, but I was also bummed that it didn’t do anything else to maintain its freshness and my interest.

C+