User Reviews

My wife and I saw In a Violent Nature (2024) at a screening at Alamo Drafthouse last night. The storyline follows a spirit that is awoken by some local campers, and they soon discover that this spirit has 60 years of pent-up anger, which they are about to experience firsthand.

This film is written and directed by Chris Nash (ABCs of Death 2 segment), in his directorial debut, and stars Ry Barrett (Cult Hero), Andrea Pavlovic (Learn to Swim), Cameron Love (An Unexpected Killer) and Sam Roulston (Mood).

I'll start by saying I wanted to like this movie much more. This is a very unique slasher in terms of its filming, storytelling, and overall cinematography. The horror elements are top-notch, featuring some of the best kill scenes I've seen in 2024. The unique kills and elite gore are absolutely awesome. Unfortunately, the story itself is extremely stale. There are excessively long sequences of walking or running through the woods with nothing happening. While this gives a realistic feel to how a real serial killer might operate, and their victims, the camper elements are purposely clichéd and cheesy, with bad lines and terrible acting. This intentional bad dialogue doesn't fit the killer's narrative. The campfire narration of the backstory is especially awful. On the other hand, I loved the killer, his backstory, and his presentation. This movie could have been much better with improved editing, a better cast, and a slightly bigger budget.

In conclusion, In a Violent Nature is a unique and entertaining addition to the horror genre that falls short of its potential, but I'd definitely watch a sequel. I would score this a 6/10 and strongly recommend it.

"In a Violent Nature" sets out with an intriguing premise: a slasher flick seen entirely from the killer's perspective. This undead dude named Johnny, resurrected by meddling campers, is on a bloody quest to reclaim a mysterious locket.

Simple enough, I'm in.

The first act is promising. The cinematography is cool, with a voyeuristic perspective that places you right in Johnny's rotting shoes (or lack thereof). Some of kills are undeniably brutal, with a focus on practical effects that'll make you squirm. It feels almost like a first-person video game at times, and for a horror fan, that's an initial thrill.

But here's where things get messy. The novelty of Johnny's perspective wears off fast. The movie becomes repetitive. We see him lumber through the woods (this is where I wished I could mash the sprint button on my controller to get him to move quicker - so much walking), fixate on the teens through the trees, then unleash another gruesome kill.

The campers themselves are forgettable slasher fodder. We don't care about them, and there's no attempt to make them interesting. They're just there to be gruesome set pieces.

Then comes the ending. Let's just say it's a massive letdown. The build-up to the climax fizzles out with a whimper, leaving you feeling cheated after a slog through repetitive sequences. I honestly don't know if I would seek this out to watch again, but may possibly leave it on, if I came across it while it was playing.

The gorehounds will find plenty to appreciate. But the repetitive nature, lack of character development, and a disappointing ending make this a frustrating watch. It's a movie with a great idea that stumbles over its own execution.

"In a Violent Nature" emerges as a visceral tour de force in the realm of slasher horror, a genre that often revels in its own excess. Director Chris Nash's homage to the low-budget '80s slashers is both a nod to the past and a savage reimagining for the modern era. The film's narrative, while not groundbreaking, serves as a sturdy scaffold for the true star of the show: the kills. The undead protagonist, Johnny, is a relentless force, his origin story rooted in a tragic mishap that sees him resurrected with a singular, vengeful purpose. The practical effects are a standout, with each kill executed with a level of gore and creativity that pushes the boundaries of the genre. The use of traditional tools of death, such as a hatchet and drag hooks, lends a brutal authenticity to Johnny's rampage. The cinematography is deliberate, with lingering shots that build tension and a camera that stalks its prey with the same predatory focus as Johnny himself. The film's pacing is unyielding, each scene meticulously crafted to escalate the horror until it reaches a crescendo of blood and terror. The performances are commendable, particularly given the film's modest budget. The rest of the cast are forgettable and don't trust them one bit, remember you're here for the gruesome kills not for other characters, Johnny is your main focus.

"In a Violent Nature" is not just a slasher film; it's a statement. It's a bloody, unapologetic celebration of the genre that understands its roots and is not afraid to hack its way through the underbrush to carve out its own legacy. With its unflinching approach to horror and a killer who could very well become the next icon of terror.

Of why non horror fans should not be allowed to leave a review. Complete shame that this movie is sitting at a 5.8. It's unique, bold and beautiful. Some of the best kill scenes in any movie, unique angles and cinematography. The build up progressively gets more intense and sure the "story" isn't all that but go read a book if you want a story. Solid 8 or maybe I even underrated it, could get away with a 9. Could even be a sequel, a new horror villain has arrived. It was also good to see the killer masked and un masked. Some kills were off screen but most were on screen and extremely brutal/realistic.

Typical plot recycled from many old stories nothing really overly exciting unfortunately acting is subpar this will quickly go to DVD it's your average Gore flick film very much similar to Jason Voorhees Freddy Krueger and many other slasher films truthfully there's absolutely nothing unique about this film sadly which I had high hopes for but unfortunately looking at the dialogue applied the writing it's your typical derated movie that will go straight to DVD unfortunately the directing was not bad the editing was not bad but unfortunately the plot fell there's really nothing there to be excited about because it just seems all recycled from other famous horror movies.

I'm a big fan of horror movies, so I partook in adventure with 3 of my co-workers to watch this "movie". That was a mistake. This movie is hot garbage. Around 70% of the film is just the crazy murderer walking... That's not even an exaggeration... The kills happen pretty consistently throughout the film, although only one of the kills is actually interesting. All the others are quite bland. And I didn't expect much of a plot, but even still... The gist is the murderer sleeps in his grave until someone takes his necklace, then he wantonly hunts down anyone in the area. (Pretty much a modern day Draugr) That is all the plot we get, unless we include the generic folk story. This movie looks like it was done over the course of 24 hours.... The production quality was very elementary. And the plot holes were ridiculous. And to tie it all together, we get the most bland characters known to man! 1/10! There's no reason to ever watch this.

If you like slashers like Halloween Kills, you will probably like this, it was very quiet but graphic and bloody, the killers mask was funny looking, should've stayed unmasked, but slashers do need their masks...The story was basic and honestly i would've loved more story and characters dialog. It is a point of view but only like 60 percent is point of view, we do get the traditional cinema camera angles and movements here and there. Overall it's a must see for horror fans, and very graphic, my audience loved it. But honestly would work better as a slasher movie without the point of view and with the traditional scary music we are used to...because the scene where the killer literally spends 5 minutes dragging a unconscious dude around, prepping him up for a wood chopping machine, and then chopping the dead dude up with the machine was very loud, slow, boring and irritating!!! We do not need to watch a slasher drag, prep, and then chop up an unconscious dead guy while a very, VERY loud machine motor runs on and on!! The rest of the kills were amazing though...I do want a friday the 13th movie now...The gore was great but Terrifier 2 and Hatchet remain at the top tier GORE....

Ever wonder what the killer in the woods is doing behind the scenes? In a Violent Nature answers that question. And it's a whole lot of walking around the woods.

This movie is a cool concept that sounds interesting on paper, but does not translate to screen. There is a complete lack of tension to the whole film. I think this is partially the way it's shot, but also because most (not all) of the time, we know where the killer is. The lack of music is also a detriment.

The killer is not interesting like a Jason or Freddy. And we don't get a chance to know the victims either because we are too busy watching the killer walk around in the forest. It makes for an experience I had nothing to attach myself to, and no one to root for.

The ADR is extremely distracting, and the performances and dialogue are not good. While I commend the movie for being excessively gory, and using all practical effects, I felt like I was watching aged effects. The dead bodies don't look real, and when thrown around they look very bad. I probably normally wouldn't care about this if I was locked into the movie, but I unfortunately was not.

I appreciate it for trying something new. But sometimes things are done a certain way for a reason. In this case, slashers should follow dumb teenagers, and not the silent killers. They are way more fun to watch.

I kinda understand the hate but I love the vibes of similarities to other classics, the tension was great, and superb grotesque brutal horror experience! Sure it is cheesy I don't think it was as bad as some stuff I've seen I mean the acting was average maybe not best directing goodness though the peaceful scenery and madness is worth it. Overall an awesome experience that deserves better, I loved the main killer the most and how he was an urban legend come true that is an unstoppable force that would terrify me more than anything else! The creepy vibes were nice and I'm happy with the way everything plays out.

After sitting in a score-less, 90-minute slasher-in-the-woods thriller, one of the scariest things were the walks to my car and back to my place. Now accustomed to no theme music, the killer could be anywhere!

In a Violent Nature will absolutely polarize the horror community. For starters, you GOTTA love Slashers. Even more so, the Friday the 13th and Hatchet franchises. You also GOTTA have patience, show indifference to an unoriginal plot, accept its 4:3 ratio and half-suspend your disbelief.

I can see some people hating this. Heck, about 4 people walked out of the small theatre I was in with only a few people attending to begin with. Not much happens, it can drag and there's...soooo....much...walking. I even felt like I did a workout following around the killer so much.

The positives, on the other hand, were good. This takes the Killer POV to the next level. For the grand majority of the feature, you will truly feel what it's like to be Jason Voorhees, minus the teleportation. So, if you ever wanted to see what's it's like from his perspective in the woods while he stalks his victims, here you go.

And while they did try and make it realistic - again, no score, no teleporting, lotza walking/stalking, this killer is still a close relative of Friday the 13th's Jason and Hatchet's Victor Crowley. Kinda reminded me of Disney's Pocahontas where they tried to make it realistic with no talking animals, but still had a talking tree.

The synopsis is basic: Simple-minded killer in the woods plows through any human in his path until someone tries to stop him. You're not watching this for the plot, as in most Slashers, but the gimmick. And this one is merely following around the killer as he stalks and what he hears, sees or senses as his next victim.

I'm iffy on this one. I loved the concept, but I hated the ratio - even though I understood it. I'd still like to see it in widescreen. (This goes for Zach Synder's Justice League as well. Black & White is barely tolerable these days for a film technique, but 4:3 screen ratio is intolerable.) I loved the graphic kills and suspense - where's the killer now?!, but I hated the long, long walks. (We get it after a while!) And that ending. Whew.

It's too bad I'm completely split with this one. I wanted more and if they were going for realism, they should've stuck to their guns.

***

Final Thoughts: One thing this thoroughly reminded me of was: the Friday the 13th video game. During the pandemic, I bought my first Xbox SPECIFICALLY for this game. Unfortunately, I only played it a few times as I couldn't get the controls right/kills down in time and I heard recently they just up and discontinued the game. Regardless, following around this movie's killer for long periods of time made me recall the few times I played the game. (And not in the movie's favor, the game looked a heck of alot better than what I saw in this movie.)

Nash's new film, In A Violent Nature explores the killer instinct within surreal and the usage of the beautiful Canadian landscapes. Nash not new to the fantasy and horror with his 2016 The Void surreal epic but there's a lot of studies here with creative camera angles, to explore its violence.

Nash did it in a successful way, but mixing the perspective of the hunter and the prey, in some ways reminiscing the 2003 critically acclaimed French film, Haute Tension and the lesser appreciated 2019 film, Random Acts of Violence. It also will fulfill gorehounds on the violent scenes, giving a lot seemingly ho.age to Friday the 13th Jason character.

Also exploring the Final Girl mythological definition. Nash's usage of an non existent soundtrack helps the tension and credibility of the film violence.

The one star is for the murder of the yoga chick. It wasn't a 'remake' or good in any sense and it felt like a rip of Friday the thirteenth. The overall production quality was bad and every part was predictable except for the very end, which just made the movie feel unfinished and unfufilled. If I could go back and not watch the movie, I would. While some parts were genuinely scary, it was only because it looked like the set was dangerous, the other moments were ruined by the low quality footage and bad camera cuts. The plot (or lack thereof) itself and the footage felt like they were held together with Elmer's glue. The entire first 30 minutes felt unnecessary and pointless, it wasn't even world building or setting the mood, it was just bad. This movie was revolutionary or innovative it was dull and lackluster.