In a Violent Nature

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.

If I had to watch one more shot of the killer walking through the forest, a damn field, or some other picturesque landscape I would have sworn I was watching a 3rd person nature documentary.

I don't mind a film being slow for the sake of tension building or for a great payoff (think Jaws, slow but a HUGE payoff) but this was slow and tedious to the point I thought the director was having a joke at the watcher's expense. It genuinely went on for so long or so repetitively at times I particularly thought I was watching a satirical horror movie. Think of that scene in Monte Python and the Holy Grail where they replay the same scene of a knight running towards you over and over.

There were some original kills (credit where credit is due, the overlook kill was fantastic) but to see other reviews saying that it's horrifying, and the most frightening, gory film they've seen makes me question how much horror the reviewers have actually seen.

It's a more ambient Friday the 13th / Jason film and nothing more.

Walking out of the theater, I passed a man who turned to his wife and said, "Well, we'll never get that time back" and he's absolutely right.

This movie remembered me to Friday The 13th the videogame. I mean the camera work, the murders and filming locations are pretty close. Probably producers were inspired by Friday the 13th original movie but they've tried to give a new vision. The result is not as good, nor original and the overall product seems too simplistic (even a slasher).

First, the story is inexistent and it's the usual one if you have watched similar slashers.

Second, the overall result is a cheap copy of Friday the 13th (Even 2009 version is better than this one).

Last, the murders are the best here. It doesn't look cheap for a B movie.

So, overall a wasted opportunity with so much potential. I recommend this one only to slashers B-grade fans. Other than that skip. There are other several good classics from the 80's like Nightmare on Elm street, Christine, Halloween or Alien.

You have your good movies and bad movies, and then you have the ones that should have never been made, but unfortunately, in A Violent Nature was made. I would rather drink a cup of bleach than even watch this movie. This movie was the temu version of Friday the 13th. It was a good concept to have a slasher movie that shows POV of the killer. But In A Violent Nature, did not deliver at all. About 95% of the movie was watching the back of the killers head as he was walking. The whole movie went like this: walking, walking, walking, walking, kill, more, walking, walking, walking, walking, walking, walking, walking, walking, kill, walking, walking.. ok, you get it. The plot of the story was so damn stupid and cliché. The acting was atrocious. The kills were horrible, and some dragged out, made no sense. The editing was bad. It was like a 5 year old made this whole movie. This movie could have been cut into a 5 min short movie. Some of these reviews praising this movie are either 16 or younger, or they were paid to write a good review. This movie is not a masterpiece, or going to be a cult classic, or scary, or entertaining... But do you know what would be more entertaining then watching this abomination, if I hit my head against a brick wall instead of watching this trash movie, If i shoved a cactus in my ear, If I swam with a pool of sharks, If I jumped into a volcano, if i swim in toxic waste, if I walked on hot coals barefoot, if I rolled around in little shards of glass and pour rubbing alcohol all over me, if I wrapped barbwire around my legs and ran a marathon... that's entertainment, not this so called rip off, wannabe, non original, horrible acting, terrible script, Nash calls a movie. Chris Nash never needs to direct or write a movie ever. And Shudder should be embarrassed slapping their name anywhere on that movie. Whoever gave the green light for this movie to be released in theaters(or even to be made) needs to not ever have a say in a movie EVER.

Essentially a 'Friday The 13th' fan film with an artier title, 'In A Violent Nature (2024)' takes its genre and inverts it by putting us squarely in the perspective of its killer. It follows the formula of a very specific type of slasher pretty much to a tee, revelling in the little details that make it feel like the sequel to something that would've thrived at horror conventions, but it does so while putting its camera in a different location. The victims who usually take up most of the screen time in movies like this are placed at the edges of the frame or on the other side of windows, put where the villain is typically positioned in those same movies. We experience the characters' dynamics and conflicts as the killer would, overhearing them as fragmented and inessential pieces of filler in the grim narrative they're unaware they play a part in. The grounded, no-frills aesthetic combines with the unashamedly measured pacing to plant you in a world that feels less heightened than you're accustomed to with films of this nature, ultimately making the affair feel - loosely speaking - like what would really happen if the story conventions of a slasher were to play out in reality. This is one of the movie's major strengths, as it - along with his unparalleled capacity for absurd yet unsettling violence - makes the hulking madman at its core more frightening than his most direct inspiration (although it may just be that Jason's pop-culture status makes him feel like a morbid warm hug and grants him immunity from true fear on the part of an audience who's been counterintuitively rooting for him since the 1980s, whereas Johnny is just some guy who hasn't been osmosed into pop culture to the point that he's a star in his own right).

One of the best words to describe the feature is uncompromising, as it doesn't seem to truly care if its audience is on board with what it's doing. Its most obviously confronting aspect is its sometimes crushingly slow pace, which is used to build a feeling of dread by simply forcing you to inhabit the same space as the guy who's going to inflict great pain on the unsuspecting people he comes across. As an experience, it's almost uncomfortable by design, with its difficult-to-watch nature reflecting the idea that it isn't supposed to be nice. The shockingly brutal violence is often presented in protracted long takes that really highlight its barbarity. These scenes seamlessly blend practical effects with often widely shot footage, further making each and every kill feel as real as possible (the introduction of gore is rarely hidden by obvious cuts, for instance). This removes - or, at least, lessens - the usual genre trappings that allows audiences to form a healthy disconnect between real violence and movie violence, blurring the line to the point that it doesn't occupy the same oddly crowd-pleasing place as many of its most obvious inspirations. It isn't enjoyable in the same way, but it's still entertaining in its own, altogether more horrific fashion. A lot of the flick's conventional flaws are what make it distinct. Its commitment to its concept is generally really impressive, and it's hard to begrudge the movie for doing exactly what it wants to. Sure, it's slow and somewhat repetitive, often to the point where you feel your mind wandering in-between bouts of bloody bodily harm, but it's rarely anything less than interesting. Even if I don't find it particularly scary or even all that compelling, I admire its confidence and skill.

There is one consistent issue with the affair, though: it doesn't see things through. This is true in almost every area. It unflinchingly barrels towards its target, only to clumsily pull up at the last second and fly just far enough off course that you really notice its mishap. If you're going to do something, you should do it with conviction. To be fair, it's not conviction the film lacks; it just makes odd choices that lead to the same result. Some examples may help put things into perspective: the film has no non-diegetic music until it briefly does in a scene that trades consistency for a cheap scare; it hides the face of its killer until it doesn't in an unceremonious scene that puts it front and centre; and it follows its slasher as he slowly but surely stomps his way around the forest without cutting away until it jumps to another angle and makes you question why it held the previous shot for so damn long. In all these instances, the result of the last-minute change of heart simply makes you wonder why the pattern that's been broken was established in the first place, making you doubt every major decision and reevaluate in real time whether it was actually as brave and effective a choice as it initially seemed.

The main instance of this issue can be seen in the final movement, which - in a truly baffling move - shatters the core concept of the picture into a million pieces by shifting the film's perspective to follow the final girl. It then becomes more conventional while also refusing to take the expected route, instead opting to present an extended sequence with minimal suspense and an unsatisfying subversion at its climax (the kind of subversion that doesn't really work in a movie like this). It becomes way too talky and almost entirely inert, revolving around tangentially related dialogue that seems to think it's saying something profound about the slasher genre but is actually saying something so incredibly obvious that it usually just goes without saying (and has likely already occurred to every single fan of this type of film). This final movement really takes the wind out of the feature's sails and significantly dampens its overall impact. It's arguably one of the least effective endings I've ever seen, and it's honestly just as - if not more - boring than the bits in which the baddie does nothing other than wander through the forest for minutes at a time. With a stronger ending, the film would be far better than it ultimately is.

Other, smaller problems include some seriously silly decisions from some characters - including perhaps one of the most idiotic ideas ever to occur to a horror movie victim-to-be (and that's saying something) - and a tendency to frame its action in a repetitive way that's initially intriguing but eventually fairly dull (it mimics a third-person videogame, but never depicts anything more than waking while doing so and cuts to more interesting compositions for the more meaty action; why does it have to feel so restrictive for so long?). There's also the sense that the filmmakers think putting the audience "in the killer's perspective" means putting them "as close to the back of his head as possible", with the picture never really giving us an insight into what's going on in his brain. That's not inherently bad, as it doesn't seem like there's anything in particular rattling around in there (even the violence he inflicts is inconsistent, alternating between being shockingly sadistic and ruthlessly efficient), but the story isn't so much told from his perspective - as the marketing indicates - as it is told over his shoulder. There's still a notable distance from him, and it's not like slashers are shy about putting us in the point of view of their killers - sometimes literally - even if they don't do it as often or as consistently as this.

However, even though this is a very flawed effort, it's still an experience I'd recommend to fans of its genre. It tries to do something unique and it mostly succeeds on that front; its execution lacks refinement, but its concept is assured. There's some truly gnarly, seamlessly depicted violence that's sure to please gore hounds, and the more active segments are suitably compelling. When it boils down to it, it's better than quite a few of the 'Friday The 13th' movies, even if it does sort of feel like a big-budget fan film. It's sometimes boring, but so are most of those; this is just boring with the camera in a different location. It's a solid experimental horror feature which somehow manages to scratch the itch for the sort of straight-forward slasher that's been replaced by post-modern spins on the genre in recent years, even if this technically is the latter and it fumbles its finale quite significantly. It's not great, but it's good.