‘In a Violent Nature’ is Grisly and Vicious But That’s Not Necessarily Enough [Review]

In a Violent Nature, a new Canadian slasher from writer/director Chris Nash, is extremely deliberate in its concept and execution. Because of that, In a Violent Nature has many strengths, but just as many weaknesses. If there was ever a movie that was 100% dependent on the specific niche taste of its audience, In a Violent Nature is that movie.

I find In a Violent Nature to be intriguing because it is unlike anything I’ve seen before, which made me totally uncomfortable. There are so many gnarly sequences that made my jaw drop, but then there are a few that made my eyelids drop. You would be hard pressed to find something more graphic, intense, grisly, and vicious. But I will say, In a Violent Nature is experimental to the nth degree and won’t be for those expecting a typical slasher movie. Let’s dive in… 

To start, slasher movies account for the most well-known and successful films in the horror genre. That much is obvious. The slasher genre has been reinvented more times than you can count on Freddy Krueger’s razor fingers. We could go on for days about everything we love about slasher movies as a viewing public. From the franchise icons like Jason Vorhees and Leatherface, to the ‘final girls’ like Sidney Prescott and Julie James, to giallo films, the early-to-mid 2000s franchise remake boom, the low budget box office phenomenon of the mid-to-late 2010s, there are so many eras, so many styles. But for the most part, the motifs and tropes stay the same.

To me, slashers work best when there are fun-to-root-for protagonists, or hilariously unlikable protagonists, preferably younger people, having to confront or escape a deadly force together. When I go into this style of movie, I’m pretty positive I’ll be getting some laughs, and plenty of kills and style to appreciate. Not always looking for Citizen Kane, I’m just looking for All-American Murder. Point is, I, as well as most, are used to a specific type of slasher. It might look and sound different each time period. But the general approach is always the same. I can’t emphasize this enough. In a Violent Nature is completely unlike any of the aforementioned movies… 

In a Violent Nature is a slasher indeed. But with the scattered POV, lack of any fleshed-out characters, and aimless plot, In a Violent Nature is really just a mosaic of nasty kills. Satisfying, but disorienting, and definitely unhinged. In a Violent Nature takes an experimental approach to the slasher genre, and actively messes with us to the point where we have no idea what we are watching. Scream is famous for setting the rules of the genre. In a Violent Nature ignores the playbook and takes a whole different approach, while also ripping the playbook to shreds. Like I said, there really aren’t any characters, there is no score, and there is zero-point zero fun. It’s all just bleak and dreadful. We’re just watching people get killed in the worst ways possible by the worst thing imaginable…

The blood-thirsty dread inducing Johnny, the villain of the story, played by Ry Barrett, is actually one of the most terrifying slasher creations that I have seen in some time. Johnny is a zombie-like creature, who arises from the dead when its locket is taken from where he is buried. Simple enough to start, we’ve seen villains like that before. But this time the audience is along for the ride, mostly, with Johnny. And I say mostly because that is where I believe this movie falters, more on that later.

From the time Johnny rises from the dead, Johnny is hellbent on killing anyone and seemingly everyone in the vicinity. From there, Johnny goes on a killing spree that is unrivaled in terms of kills that will make you throw up. One in particular being the absolute worst I’ve seen in a movie. You truly have to see it to believe it, I was borderline rattled afterwards. You’ll know it when you see it. It just didn’t stop and kept getting worse.

I found it interesting that the director, Chirs Nash, took a lot of influence from the likes of Gus Van Sant (Elephant), Alan Clarke (Made in Britain), Terrence Malick (Badlands), among others. The way the camera would follow Johnny around felt very much like the output of those filmmakers, and so unlike typical slasher fare. Frequently stagnant shots, slow and steady camera movement, giving off a sense of realism that makes the action all the more terrifying. The strength of the movie is in that approach, where the audience is along with Johnny for the ride by way of this unconventional style, especially in the genre… 

On the flipside, that style leads to poor pacing and brutally long and boring sequences. The movie grinds to a halt and falters when the POV changes from Johnny to the other characters being hunted. Particularly in a third act sequence that is so drawn out and boring I couldn’t believe it wasn’t left on the cutting room floor. To be honest, I didn’t care about these people. They aren’t fleshed out and there is little context as to what they are even doing in the area.

Nothing against the performers, they are good, I just don’t understand why the audience is spending any time with them. I think the idea of In a Violent Nature is brilliant. A gritty slasher from the point of view of a monster-like killer. Great. Just commit to that and stay in Johnny’s POV throughout. Committing to that premise would be simpler, more intriguing, and far more exciting. Not only that but it would be completely unique. Instead of just kind of unique…

Like I just said, I was frustrated by the change in POV. But overall, the style and execution of the Johnny-centric sequences is phenomenal. Even with the lack of score, the sense of dread induced just by Johnny’s inherently terrifying persona is impressive. Just like the characters, the audience can’t escape Johnny’s viciousness. Usually, time away from a Johnny-type character, even for a few minutes, gives the audience time to recoup and get ready for the next set of kills. But these scenes without Johnny do not work on any level. I would have much preferred to spend the entirety of the runtime with Johnny only, with all of the other characters being just victims. I’m usually the complete opposite, where I enjoy the exposition dumps and time with the protagonists, but after experiencing In a Violent Nature, I wished that they had committed to the Johnny POV, ripping throats and impaling skulls in that Canadian green-as-can-be forest setting. Instead of so much time chit-chatting in cars and around campfires…

To Nash’s credit, experimental movies like this are hard to pull off, and even though I had my qualms with the straight-up watchability of In a Violent Nature, I still have a deep appreciation for the effort as well as the quality of the execution in the action sequences. Horror heads are going to love this one, and it will be a cult favorite, but the general movie going public is not going to go for this. I found the ambience and violence to be spot-on with what it is trying to accomplish. But there are too many dead spots on the court for the ball to maintain its bounce. Chris Nash will for sure be someone to watch going forward though, as he has a great feel for atmosphere and how to conceive and execute violent sequences… 

Overall, In a Violent Nature will be a hit with fans of ultra-violence and gore. I would definitely recommend it to that crowd. But the great concept doesn’t fully come to fruition. I was frustrated because there is a great and groundbreaking movie in there somewhere. I was really blown away by the violence, but with the inconsistent pacing and scattered POV, In a Violent Nature loses its footing, and limps to the finish line…

Wicked Horror Rating: 6/10

From IFC Films, In a Violent Nature is playing exclusively in theaters as of May 31, 2024.

Post Views:
1